Fair Trial Has Sacrosanct Purpose, Both Prosecution And Accused Should Be Heard Before Scheduling Trial: Kerala High Court

Justice K. Babu noted that Rule 77A(2) of Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala 1982 mandates that both sides should be heard before fixing the date for recording evidence.

The petitioner who is the accused in the case before the Special Court for NDPS Act Cases in Thodupuzha had made an application before the court to postpone the trial as his lawyer is engaged in another trial. The trial court rejected the application saying that the reason for which the petitioner has sought adjournment is insufficient. Against this order, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The Court held that an accused should not prejudiced in a trial.

“A fair trial has a sacrosanct purpose. It has a demonstrable object that the accused should not be prejudiced.”

The High Court observed that the accused has a right to be defended by a lawyer of his choice. The Court said that such a right is guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, Section 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and corresponding Section 340 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

The Court directed the trial court to fix the new date after hearing both the prosecution and the accused.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates K. Siju, S. Abhilash, Anjana Kannath, Mariya Jose

Counsel for the Respondents: Adv. G. Sudheer

Case No: OP (Crl.) No 639 of 2024

Case Title: Asanul Banna v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 581