Compliance with procedural rules is mandatory for judicial efficiency; delays caused by non-compliance warrant strict rectification measures.

CR

ORDER

Dated this the 02^nd day of December, 2025

This petition has been filed by the sole accused in C.C.No.11/2013 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram, arose out of Crime No.2/2009 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking the following prayer:

“To direct the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Vigilance, Thiruvananthapuram to commence the trial only after complying the provisions of Rule 19(4) of Criminal Rules of Practice, 1982 by allowing this Crl MC in the interest of justice.”

2. As on 29.11.2025, as per the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court, the trial was kept in abeyance, though, in fact, the examination of witnesses was scheduled to start from 01.12.2025 onwards. Thus, because of the interim order passed by this Court, the trial was postponed. Now, as per the order of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 01.12.2025, it was also found that there was non- compliance with Rule 19(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 1982 (for short, ‘the C.R.P., 1982,’ hereinafter), and accordingly, an order was passed as under:

“1. The Investigating officer is directed to file a comprehensive list (A) specifying the details of witnesses examined during the investigation, the documents collected and also the material objects collected.

2. The Investigating officer is directed to file a comprehensive list (B) specifying the details of witnesses, the documents and also the material objects relied upon.

3. The Investigating officer is directed to file a comprehensive list (C) specifying the details of witnesses, the documents and also the material objects un- relied.”

3. In view of the above order, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition.

4. Permission granted and this petition is dismissed withdrawn.

5. However, it appears that the examination of the witnesses was scheduled from 01.12.2025, as per order dated 11.08.2025 and the petitioner filed Annexure I petition complaining non-compliance of Rule 19(4) of the C.R.P., 1982, only on 10.11.2025, after keeping silence for a pretty long time. Thus, the filing of this petition on the previous day of start of the examination of the witnesses would involve an element of stalling the trial. Anyhow, as of now, the examination of the witnesses scheduled was stopped and the learned Special Judge is awaiting compliance of the directions he had issued, as already extracted above.

6. Noting all these aspects, there shall be a direction to the learned Special Judge to effectuate compliance of Rule 19(4) of the C.R.P., 1982, within a period of two weeks from today, and schedule the case at the earliest, and complete the examination of the witnesses and trial within a period of two months on the expiry of two weeks, for complying Rule 19(4) of the C.R.P., 1982, after ensuring compliance of the same, without fail, and report compliance.

7. In the decision inAkhil Sabu v.State of Kerala reported in [2024 (5) KHC 49] , this Court issued directions to all Criminal Courts in the District Judiciary to ensure compliance of Rule 19(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala, 1982, before start of trial, by directing the Public Prosecutors to give a specific posting for the said compliance, and to start the trial only after ensuring compliance with the mandate of Rule 19(4) of the C.R.P., 1982, without fail.

8. In the instant case, going by the order passed, as extracted hereinabove, it is discernible that the learned Special Judge failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in Akhil Sabu’s case (supra) in the strict sense and, accordingly, he was compelled to pass an order directing compliance of Rule 19(4) of the C.R.P., 1982, as extracted above, only after the accused complained of non-compliance with Rule 19(4) of the C.R.P., 1982, by filing a petition on 10.11.2025.

9. It is discernible that even though the trial court