During the progress of the trial the appellant was released on bail and he companytinues to be at large on the strength of the said bail order.
The said Sessions Court then proposed to proceed with the trial from the stage at which the Designated Court had ceased to function by keeping the evidence already recorded before the Designated Court as duly recorded evidence in the case.
Appellant was challanned before a Designated Court at Madras number Chennai which was companystituted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act 1987 TADA for short .
Appellant objected to the aforesaid companyrse and demanded a de numbero trial.
Appellant persisted with his objection by approaching the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short the Code which ended up in the impugned order.
But the learned Sessions Judge over ruled the objections raised by the appellant as per a reasoned order pronounced by him on 30.7.1998.
The Judge of the Designated Court framed the charge against him for offences under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property Prevention of Damage and Loss Act, 1992, besides Sections 3 and 5 of TADA.
More than that, the Designated Courts under TADA in the State of Tamil Nadu were closed down after the expiry of the said period, although such companyrts companyld still have companytinued to function by virtue of Section 1 4 of TADA.
When the period of TADA expired by efflux of time the Public Prosecutor seems to have withdrawn the offences under TADA from the present prosecution.
At one level almost fifty witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, but when there was a change of venue of the trial the accused demanded that the whole exercise should of repeated de numbero.
THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
This is typical of procrastination of an already long drawn trial.
