The court reinforces the necessity of compassionate considerations in legal proceedings, allowing adjournments in light of genuine emergencies.

O R D E R Dated this the 11^th day of February, 2026 The petitioners are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C No.2522/2023 on the file of the Court of the Additional Session Judge-VII, Thiruvananthapuram (Trial Court). 2. The petitioners have stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, the trial in the above case is in progress. When the case was posted for the examination of PWs 29 and 30, the counsel for the petitioners filed an application to adjourn the cross-examination of PW30 in the afternoon session, as the counsel had to take his mother for treatment to the PRS Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, since she is suffering from blood cancer. However, the petitioners’ counsel cross-examined PW29 in the forenoon session. Notwithstanding the genuine reason put forth by the petitioners in the application, the Trial Court, by the impugned Annexure A4 order, dismissed the application, on the ground that it was filed only to protract the trial. Annexure A4 impugned order is ex-facie erroneous and unreasonable. The Trial Court ought to have comprehended the genuine reason put forth by the petitioners’ counsel that he had personal inconvenience in the afternoon session. Hence, Annexure A4 order may be set aside and the petitioners may be granted one more opportunity to cross-examine PW30.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. On going through the assertions in Annexure A3 application, it is quite evident that the petitioners’ counsel has specifically stated that his mother, an octogenarian, is suffering from chronic blood cancer, and had a review at the hospital in the afternoon.

5. Admittedly, the application was not opposed by the respondent/State. Notwithstanding the reasons put forth in the application, by Annexure A4 order, the Trial Court has dismissed the application on the finding that it was filed with an intention to protract the case.

6. It may be true that the trial in the case was in progress and that the petitioners’ counsel had cross- examined PW29 in the forenoon session. However, the reason for seeking an adjournment in the afternoon session, which was not objected to by the respondent, apparently seems to be genuine and bona fide.

7.Considering the reasons stated in the application, which according to me, ought to have been compassionately considered by the Trial Court, particularly when the petitioners’ counsel had cross-examined PW29 in the forenoon session, I am satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surksha Sanhita , 2023. Nonetheless, considering the fact that PW30 was present in the court, that too for the third time for his cross examination, I am of the view that his hardship can be mitigated by directing the petitioners to pay a reasonable amount of Rs.2500/- as cost to said witness, which shall be paid before the Trial Court on the next posting date directly to PW30 and a memo to the effect shall be filed before the Trial Court along with a copy of this order, which will meet the ends of justice.

In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed in the following manner:-

(i) Annexure A4 order is set aside (ii) Annexure A3 application is allowed, by permitting the petitioners’ counsel to cross-examine PW30 on the next posting date, subject to the condition that the petitioners pay PW30 directly, Rs.2500/- as cost and file a memo to the effect along with the copy of this order before the Trial Court. If such memo is filed, the Trial Court shall permit the petitioners’ counsel to cross-examine PW30.

SD/-