MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

"High Court Advocates for Fair Trial Scheduling: 'Lawyer's Convenience Must Be Considered'

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment that underscores the importance of considering the convenience of lawyers while scheduling trials, the High Court of Kerala, led by the Honorable Mr. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, has set a precedent for a more balanced approach in the judicial process.

The judgment, delivered on November 3, 2023, in the case of CRL.MC NO. 9209 of 2023, involved the rescheduling of a murder trial initially dismissed by the Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad. The High Court's intervention was sought after the lower court's decision, which was influenced by a High Court directive for the swift disposal of murder cases.

Justice Kunhikrishnan, in his ruling, emphasized, "These are fundamental things to be considered by the trial court at the time when the case is posted for trial." He highlighted that while the expeditious disposal of cases is essential, it should not overshadow the fundamental rights of the accused, including the right to choose their legal representation.

The judgment further noted that "Accused has got a right to choose his lawyer for conducting the trial and hence the convenience of the lawyer also should be taken care of by the Court." This observation is pivotal in ensuring that the scheduling of trials is not just a unilateral decision but a process that respects the needs of all parties involved, including the legal representatives.

Advocate V.A. Johnson, representing the petitioners, welcomed the judgment, stating that it reinforces the principle of fairness in the legal process. The Public Prosecutor, Smt Sreeja V, also acknowledged the judgment's significance in balancing the need for timely justice with the practicalities of legal representation.

The High Court's directive to the Additional Sessions Court-II, Palakkad, to reconsider the application for rescheduling the trial in light of this judgment, marks a crucial step in ensuring a judicious balance between the expeditious disposal of cases and the rights of the accused to fair representation.

This landmark decision is expected to influence future cases where trial scheduling conflicts with the availability of legal counsel, ensuring a fairer and more equitable justice system.

 Date of Decision- 3rd November 2023

VISHNU VS STATE OF KERALA

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Kerl-03-Nov-23-Vishnu-Vs-State1.pdf"]

Latest Legal News