An application filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 311 of Cr.P.C before the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda was allowed by order dated 13.3.2014. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted a list two additional witnesses, and the said list was received by the trial court, on the finding that examination of those two witnesses is absolutely necessary for a just decision in the case. The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the said order passed by the trial court. 2. On hearing both sides, I find that examination of two additional witnesses will not, in fact, cause any prejudice to the petitioner. It appears that the concern of the accused is that trial of the case will be further delayed, if two more witnesses are allowed to be examined. The impugned order shows that the Investigating Officer had collected necessary materials from the scene of incident, Crl.M.A No.2305 of 2014 & Crl.R.P No.709 of 2014
2
and the two additional witnesses proposed to be examined are expected to speak about the collection of materials. Thus, it is not something new that is going to be introduced by the prosecution by examining additional witnesses. I find no reason for interference in the impugned order of the trial court. However, in view of the concern of the accused that the trial will be delayed, the trial court can be directed to expedite trial and disposal.
In the result, this revision petition is dismissed, however, with direction to the trial court to expedite trial of the case within a reasonable period and dispose of the case, as expeditiously as possible, and if possible within six months.
ma /True copy/ Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE P.S to Judge