Kerala High Court
Alif Khan vs State Of Kerala on 3 April, 2024
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 14TH CHAITHRA,
1946
CRL.MC NO. 3170 OF 2024
CRIME NO.7/2023 OF DEVIKULAM EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,
IDUKKI
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.39 OF 2023 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, THODUPUZHA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED :
ALIF KHAN, AGED 25 YEARS
S/O ABDUL AHAD,
VELLUPPARA KARAYIL PATTATH HOUSE,
GALAM, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691506
BY ADVS.
ANEESH K.R
SANTHI P.S.
SAURAV B.
LIA GEORGE
DEEPIKA P.
RESPONDENT/STATE :
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
SMT. SREEJA V. (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC 3170/2024
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
......................................................
Crl.M.C. No.3170 of 2024
...................................................
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2024
ORDER
Petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.No.39/2023 on the files of
the Sessions Court (Adhoc)-II, Thodupuzha. He has sought for
an adjournment of the trial scheduled to be held on 09.04.2024,
due to the inconvenience of his counsel. By order dated
18.03.2024, the Special Court dismissed the said application.
Challenging the said order, this Crl.M.C.has been preferred.
2. I have heard Sri.Aneesh K.R., the learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public
Prosecutor.
3. The trial was scheduled to be held from 09.04.2024 onwards as
per the proceedings dated 24.02.2024. Summons were also
issued to CW1 and CW2 to appear on 09.04.2024, CW3 and
CW4 on 11.04.2024, CW5 to CW8 on 15.04.2024 and CW9 to
appear on 16.04.2024. The petitioner is an under-trial prisoner
as well. Despite the trial having been scheduled as early as on
24.02.2024 and summons having already been issued to the
witnesses, the petitioner's request for adjournment of the trial
was dismissed by the learned Magistrate.
4. The inconvenience of the counsel is not a reason for
adjournment of a scheduled trial. Though, on several occasions,
courts have deferred the trial, taking into reckoning the
inconvenience of the counsel, the same cannot be treated as a
hard and fast rule. If such inconvenience of the counsel is
accepted as a reason to adjourn the trial, there would be no end
to such requests.
5. However, there is no doubt that the court can accommodate
counsel, but that is not a reason to adjourn the trial. Hence, I
find no merit in this Crl.M.C. and it is dismissed.
sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
AMV/04/04/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT IN CRIME NO
7/2023 IS PRODUCED OF EXCISE RANGE
OFFICE, DEVIKULAM
ANNEXURE A2 THE SCREENSHOT OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN SC
NO 39/2023 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT/NDPS COURT THODUPUZHA
ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY
OF THE FATHER OF THE COUNSEL NAMED MR
RAMAKRISHNAN FROM MEDICAL COLLEGE
THRISSUR
ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY
DATED 16.03.2024 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE
THRISSUR
ANNEXURE A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION CRL MP NO
167/2024 DATED 06.03.2024 BEFORE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT/NDPS COURT
THODUPUZHA
ANNEXURE A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
18.03.2024 IN CRL MP NO 167/2024 BEFORE
II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT/NDPS COURT
THODUPUZHA
TRUE COPY
