LexSTATE OF U.P. versus SHAMBHU NATH SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D STATE OF U.P. v. SHAMBHU NATH SINGH AND ORS. MARCH 29. 2001 [K.T. THOMAS AND RP. SETHI, JJ.] Criminal Trial : Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Section 309-Witnesses-Examination of-Delay in-Witness examined but not cross-examined-Case adjourned to different days but witness still not cross-examined-Ultimately case posted to a particular day and witness was absent-Trial court closed the prosecution evidence and acquitted the ac- cused-Correctness of-Held: Miscarriage of justice has resulted due to trial court's failure to comply with the mandate of the Code-Order of acquittal set aside-Trial court directed to proceed with the furtherexaminazion of prosecu- tion witnesses and dispose of the case in acconlance with law. Criminal proceedings-Witness-Examination of-Requirement of E Cr.P.C.-Held : Once examination of witnesses has started, trial has to be continued on a day-to-day basis-Proceedings to be adjourned only if there are special reasons-Inconvenience of Advocate is not a "special ~ason ". F Worru and Phrases : "Special reasons"-Meaning of-In the context ofS. 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The respondents-accused were charged for offences under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code, 1860. PW-1 was G examined but his cross-examination was not completed. The case was adjourned to different days and, although PW-1 turned up on those days, yet he was not cross-examined due to one reason or the other. Ultimately the case stood posted for a particular day but PW-1 was not present and \. the trial court closed the prosecution evidence and acquitted the respond- H ents-accused. The appellant-Stale moved the High Court seeking leave lo · 854 _, STATE v. S.N. SINGH appeal, which was refused. Hence this appeal. Disposing of the appeal, the Court 855 HELD : 1. 1f a witness is present in court he must be examined on that day. The court must know that most of the witnesses could attend the court only at heavy cost to them, after keeping aside their own avocation. Certainly they incur suffering and loss of income. The meagre amount of Bhatia (allowance), which a witness may be paid by the court, is generally a poor solace for the financial loss incurred by him. It is a sad plight in the trial courts that witnesses who are called through summons or other processes stand at the doorstep from morning till evening only to he told at the end of the day that the case is adjourned to another day. This primitive practice must be reformed by the presiding officers of the trial courts and it can be reformed by every one provided the presiding officer concerned has a commitment to duty. No sadistic pleasure in seeing how other per- sons summoned by him as witnesses are stranded on ace· uni of the dimen- sion of his judicial powers can be a persuading factor for granting such adjournments lavishly, that too in a casual manner. [859-D-E] 2.1. Once examination of witnesses has started the court has to continue the trial from day-to-day until all witnesses in attendance have been examined (except those whom the party bas given up). The court has to record reasons for deviating from the said course. Even that is forbid- den when witnesses are present in court, as the requirement then is that the court has to examine them. Only if there are "special reasons'', which reasons should find a place in the order for adjournment that alone can confer jurisdiction on the court to adjourn the case without examination of witnesses who are present in court. [861-B-C] 2.2. Often such adjournments are granted to suit the convenience of the advocate concerned. It is made clear that the legislature has frowned at granting adjournments on that ground. At any rate inconvenience of an advocate is not a ''special reason" for bypassing the mandate of Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. [861-E] 3. If any court finds that the day-to-day examination of witnesses mandated by the legislature cannot be complied with due to the non co- operation of accused or his counsel the court can adopt any of the meas- ures indicated in Section 309(2) of the Code i.e. remanding the accused to A B c D E F G H A B c 856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R. custody or imposing cost on the party who wants such adjournments (the cost most he commensurate with the loss suffered by the witnesses, includ- ing the expenses to attend the court).
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.