LexTHE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus MIR USMAN @ ARA @ MIR USMAN ALI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1490 : 2025 INSC 1155 The Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 969 of 2025) 22 September 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration When victim herself has stepped into witness box, whether her examination can be done in piecemeal. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.309 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.346 – Examination of witnesses – In the instant case, trial court recorded the statement of the victim and thereafter adjourned the matter for further examination by a period of four months – Whether such prevailing practice can be approved: Held: Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 346 of the BNSS, 2023) contains a mandatory provision that in every inquiry or trial, the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the same shall be continued from day to day basis until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined unless the Court finds the adjournment of the case beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded – The emphasis of this Section cannot be overlooked and must not be overlooked by any Judicial Officer who tries a criminal case, much less by the higher officers, like the Sessions Judges presiding over the Sessions Court, where serious offences are being tried day in and day out – It is true that the court has the discretion to defer the cross examination – But this Court does not approve the practice prevailing in the trial courts across the country that the examination-in-chief of a particular witness is recorded in a particular month and his cross-examination would follow in particular subsequent month – The legal position is that once the examination of witnesses starts the court concerned must continue the trial from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined (except those whom the public prosecutor has given up). [Paras 20 and 21] [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1491 The Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.309 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.346 – Directions by the Supreme Court – The Chief Justices of the High Courts may direct their administrative side to issue a circular to the respective district judiciaries stating as under: Held: 1) The proceedings in every inquiry or trial shall be held expeditiously; 2) When the stage of examination of witnesses starts such examination shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in the attendance have been examined except for special reasons to be recorded in writing; 3) When the witnesses are in attendance before the Court no adjournment or postponement shall be granted without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing; 4) The Court should not grant the adjournment to suit the convenience of the advocate concerned except on very exceptional grounds like bereavement in the family and similar exceptional reasons duly supported by memo – Be it noted that the said inconvenience of an advocate is not a “Special Reason” for the purpose of bypassing the immunity of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.; 5) In case of non-cooperation of accused or his counsel, the following shall be kept in mind: a) In case of non-cooperation of the counsel, the Court shall satisfy itself whether the non-cooperation is in active collusion with the accused to delay the trial – If it is so satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing, it may, if the accused is on bail, put the accused on notice to show cause why the bail cannot be cancelled; b) In cases where the accused is not in collusion with lawyer and it is the lawyer who is not cooperating with the trial, the Court may for reason to be recorded, appoint an amicus curiae for the accused and fix a date for proceeding with cross-examination/trial; c) The Court may also in appropriate cases impose cost on the accused commensurate with the loss suffered by the witness including the expenses to attend the court; d) In case when the accused is absent and the witness is present for examination, in that case the Court can cancel the bail of accused if he is on bail (Unless an application is made on his behalf seeking permission for his counsel to proceed to examine the witness present even in his absence,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.