The court underscored the necessity of proceeding with trial despite health concerns, confirming the trial judge's dismissal of the petition to split the case.

ORDER

The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2709 of 2024 in S.C.No.190 of 2023 dated 01.10.2024 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram, dismissing the petition filed under Section 317(2) Cr.P.C. to split up the case as against the petitioner/second accused.

2. The respondent police, after completing investigation in Crime No.2 of 2021, has laid the final report against 5 persons including the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 140, 124A , 108A and 120B IPC , Section 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act , 1967 and Section 12(1)(b) of Passport Act , 1967 and after committal, the case was made over to the Principal Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.190 of 2023.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would admit that since Non-Bailable Warrant is pending against fifth accused for long time, the case as against him was ordered to be split up and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.79 of 2024 and in respect of other accused, charges were framed and is pending for trial.

4. Pending trial, the petitioner/second accused has filed the above petition to split up the case as against him on the ground that the offence under Section 124A IPC was kept in abeyance by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the petitioner is a heart patient. The learned trial Judge, taking note of the objections of the prosecution, has passed the impugned order dated 01.10.2024 dismissing the said petition.

5. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) and as rightly observed by the learned trial Judge, the reasons assigned by the petitioner, by no stretch of imagination, can be taken as a ground for splitting up the case as against him.

6. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court may be directed to complete the trial within a time to be stipulated by this Court, as the petitioner is suffering from heart ailments.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that earlier this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3881 of 2024 has directed the trial Court to dispose of the case within one or two months but the trial is yet to be commenced and she has also produced the copy of the order passed in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3881 of 2024, wherein, this Court vide order dated 12.03.2024 directed the trial Court to dispose of the case within one or two months.

8. Considering the above facts and circumstances and also taking note of the fact that trial is yet to be commenced despite the specific direction of this Court, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram is hereby directed to proceed with the trial in S.C.No. 190 of 2023 and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. With the above directions, this Criminal Revision Case stands disposed of. No costs.