Trial proceedings may continue despite delays in document provision, as long as sufficient opportunity for defense is granted.

O R D E R

The petitioner is the 12^th accused in C.C.No.1650 of

2016 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram ('Trial Court', in short), which has originated from Crime No.169/CR/TVPM of 2008 registered by the Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. It is the petitioner's limited grievance that, although he had applied for the certified copies of the documents in the above case, the same has not been issued till date. However, the Trial Court is surging ahead with the trial, which is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. Therefore, the Trial Court may be directed to issue the certified copies of the documents as sought for in Annexure-2 copy application acknowledgment, for conducting the examination of the Investigating Officer in the above crime. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

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

4. When the Crl.M.C. came up for consideration, this Court had called for a report from the Trial Court to ascertain the assertions made in the Crl.M.C.

5. By communication dated 19.03.2026, the Trial Court has reported that a copy application was submitted by the petitioner for the certified copies of,- (1) final report with documents, (2) Form 15 with documents, and (3) documents produced by witnesses under Section 91 Cr.P.C. On perusal of the above documents, 455 sheets were required for providing the applied documents. Due to the voluminous nature of the documents, there was some delay in issuing the same. The entire documents were ready and stamps were called on 17.03.2026. However, the petitioner has not furnished the stamps so far. 182 witnesses have been examined and 372 exhibits have been marked through the said witnesses. The case is at the final stage. The Investigating Officer (CW319) was examined-in-chief on 07.03.2026 and his cross-examination is scheduled on 21.03.2026. Two weeks time has been allowed to comply with the copy application filed by the accused persons. Cross-examination of the Investigating Officer would be conducted only after the applied documents are provided to the accused persons.

6. It is now the case of the petitioner that, although he had applied for the above-mentioned documents, all the documents have not been provided to him. Likewise, he had furnished the stamps on the day it was called for. Hence, the trial in the case may be stayed.

Going by the report of the Trial Court, that all the documents have been furnished to the petitioner, which is also evident from the endorsement on Annexure-3 endorsement, that the documents were delivered on

21.03.2026, I do not find any justification or reason to stay further proceedings in the above case, especially because the Trial Court has granted sufficient time to the accused persons to cross-examine the witnesses. The Crl.M.C. is meritless, and is consequently dismissed.