2025:KER:25907 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 1919 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2025 IN CRMP.NO.22/2025 IN SC NO.651 OF 2025 OF SPECIAL COURT UNDER POCSO ACT, MANJERI PETITIONER/ACCUSED: SAINUL ABIDEEN AGED 38 YEARS S/O. KUNHAHAMMED, CHAKKUMTHODI HOUSE, RAMAPURAM, BLOCKUM PADI MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679321 BY ADVS. DEVAPRASANTH.P.J. SMINI JOSE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT: BY ADV. SEENA C – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No. 1919 of 2025 ..2.. 2025:KER:25907 O R D E R Dated this the 25th day of March, 2025 Petitioner herein is the accused in S.C.No.651/2017 pending before the Special Court (POCSO), Manjeri. He is aggrieved by Annexures-VII and X Orders, which dismissed his application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and also under Section 353 of the B.N.S.S, respectively. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a priest and that he was afforded only with two opportunities for adducing defence evidence, that is to say, on 08.10.2024 and 14.10.2024. Learned counsel would point out that, when the matter was posted for hearing on 22.10.2024, the petitioner came to know that the counsel engaged by him was not good enough to contest complex criminal cases, for which reason, he changed the lawyer. When the new lawyer studied the case, many Crl.M.C.No. 1919 of 2025 ..3.. 2025:KER:25907 important documents on the side of the petitioner were found to be not produced in defence evidence. It is in such circumstances that Annexure-V Crl.M.P was filed seeking to reopen the evidence. The same was dismissed vide Annexure-VII Order. The petitioner filed yet another Crl.M.P. Vide Annexure-VIII seeking to adduce defence evidence. The same was dismissed vide Annexure-X Order. Both Annexures-VII and X Orders are under challenge. Learned counsel for the petitioner would seeks both Orders to be set aside, so as to afford opportunity to the petitioner/accused, thus ensuring the classical requirements of a fair trial. 4. This application was seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. It was pointed out that umpteen number of opportunities were granted to the petitioner/accused to adduce defence evidence, which opportunities were, however, not availed by the petitioner. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court finds little merit in the Crl.M.C.No. 1919 of 2025 ..4.. 2025:KER:25907 instant Criminal Miscellaneous Case. It is necessary to refer to the proceedings which transpired in this Sessions Case. Summons was issued to CW15 on 19.07.2024, and the case was adjourned to 01.08.2024. However, CW15 was not present on subsequent two or three occasions. Ultimately, warrant was issued to CW15 and he got examined on 19.09.2024. The case was posted for examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 30.09.2024. On that date, the accused was absent and the case was adjourned for examination under Section 313 to 04.10.2024. On that date also, the accused was present, and he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the case was posted for defence evidence on 08.10.2024. On 08.10.2024, the accused was absent, and the case was adjourned 14.10.2024 for defence evidence. On 14.10.2024 also, the accused was absent. However, three documents were produced on the defence side. The same were not opposed by the prosecution, and they were marked as Exts.D1 to D3. The case was then adjourned for hearing to 22.10.2024. On 22.10.2024, the Judge was on leave and the case was Crl.M.C.No. 1919 of 2025 ..5.. 2025:KER:25907 adjourned to 25.10.2024. On 25.10.2024, the accused was present and the case was adjourned to 06.11.2024 for hearing. On 06.11.2024 also, the accused was present. It is recorded that there was no defence evidence and the case was adjourned for hearing to 28.11.2024. On 28.11.2024, the accused was present and the case was again posted for defence evidence and hearing to 23.12.2024. On 23.12.2024, the Judge was on leave and the case was posted to 31.12.2024. From 31.12.2024, it was adjourned to 06.01.2025, since the counsel for the accused requested the time for hearing. On 10.01.2025, the accused was absent and Non Bailable Warrant was issued; and the case was adjourned to 15.01.2025. On 15.01.2025 also, the accused is absent, and the Non Bailable Warrant was issued to the accused and also to the sureties; and the case was adjourned to 20.01.2025. It was while so, that Annexure-V application was filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. On 09.01.2025, the petitioner also filed yet another application under Section 353 B.N.S.S. to adduce defence evidence, which was dismissed vide Annexure-X. Crl.M.C.No. 1919 of 2025 ..6.. 2025:KER:25907 6. This Court notice that Section 313 examination of the accused was over as early as on 04.10.2024. Thereafter, until 09.01.2025, when he filed Annexure-V application, there were as many as eight postings. Admittedly, no application was preferred by the petitioner seeking to reopen the evidence, or for that matter, seeking to adduce defence evidence. It is after the eighth posting for hearing the matter finally, that the petitioner/accused has come up with the instant application for adducing defence evidence. The learned Sessions Judge, in the impugned Annexure-VII Order, has referred to a situation where the petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(Crl)No.473/2021 and obtained an Order of stay, which was in vogue from 14.12.2021 upto 20.06.2024. It was after vacating the stay that the case proceeded. Now, the petitioner again approached this Court, aggrieved by Annexures-VII and X Orders. The obvious intention appears to be to drag the proceedings. A person who has been afforded with as many as eight opportunities cannot be Crl.M.C.No. 1919 of 2025 ..7.. 2025:KER:25907 heard to contend that, as a part of a fair trial, he should still be given one more opportunity, either for the purpose of recalling the prosecution witness, or for adducing defence evidence. 7. The Code of Criminal Procedure contains a definite scheme for proceeding with the trial. There is also a mandate that the trial in respect of serious offences shall proceed on a day-to-day basis. In the instant case, we see extreme latitudes being shown to the petitioner/accused by affording him enough opportunities. Still, he fails to grab such opportunities to adduce evidence in support of the defence. In such situation, a request for further opportunity cannot be countenanced. The resultant situation is that this Crl. M.C. fails and the same will stand dismissed. Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE TR Crl.M.C.No. 1919 of 2025 ..8.. 2025:KER:25907 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1919/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure I A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (CRL.) NO.473/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED, 7-12-2023 Annexure II A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF OF MALAPPURAM DATED, 29-2-2024 Annexure III THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.06.2024 IN WP(CRL) NO 665 OF 2024 Annexure IV TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION Annexure V TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION TO REOPEN THE EVIDENCE AS CRL.M.P.NO 21 OF 25 IN SC NO 651 OF 2025 Annexure VI TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE PROSECUTION THE COUNTER FILED BY THE PROSECUTION Annexure VII TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2025 CRL.M.P.NO 21 OF 25 IN SC NO 651 OF 2025 Annexure VIII TRUE COPY OF THE CRL.M.P.NO 22 OF 25 IN SC NO 651 OF 2025 WAS FILED TO EXAMINE WITNESSES ON THE SIDE OF THE ACCUSED Annexure IX TRUE COPY OF THE THE COUNTER FILED BY THE PROSECUTION CRL.M.P.NO 22 OF 25 IN SC NO 651 OF 2025 Annexure X TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2025 CRL.M.P.NO 22 OF 25 IN SC NO 651 OF 2025 LIST OF WITNESSES LIST OF WITNESSES LIST OF DOCUMENTS LIST OF DOCUMENTS