LT. COL. S. J: CHAUDHARY . . . y. . 4 :
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION), : : January 17, 1984 ,
{O-Caninarra Reppy, BS. VanicaraRamtan anp R. B. Misra, My
Criminal Procedure—Trial by'se sessions court to proceed from day to diy, Trial .
when could be adjourned.” Pracrice—Duty of Advocate ' The petitioner sought modification of the Court’s order that the trial should proceed from day to day on the ground that his advocates were’not prepared to
: appear in the case from day to day as the trial was likely to be prolonged.
Dismissing the. petition,
’ HELD: It will be in, the interest of both the prosecution and ‘the defence that the trial proceeds from day-to-day. Before commencing a trial, a Sessions
Judge must satisfy: himself that all ngcessary evidence is available: If it is not, he 7 anay postpone the case, but only. on the strongest possible ground and for the shortest possible period. Once the trial commences; he should, except for a very pressing
\ reason which makes an ‘adjournment inevitable, ‘Proceed de die in. n-diem until the trial i is concluded: [89C- D} oo
Iti is the duty of avery advocate who accepts the’ brief in a critninal case to attend the trial’ from day-to-day.. Having accepted the brief, he will be cominitting a breach of his professional duty, ‘if he SO fails to attend. ” (439 E-F]
“Canines APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Misc. Petition No.- 284 of 1984 in’ Spe cial Leave Petn.. (Crl.) No. 3000 of 1983. -
RL. Sharma, K. K. Mohan and Mrs. Gectanjat Mohan for -
. the Petitioner.
KG. Bhagat, Additional Solicitor General, RD: Agarwal and
. ; R. N, Poddar for the: Respondent.
-* The Order of the Court was delivered by:
Cursnappa Reopy, J. . By an order dated December 2, 1983, this court while dismissing a petition for special leave to appeal filed.
° wa
“8.3. CHAUDHARY ¥. STATE (Chinnéppa Reddy, Jy raid against-an order of the Delhi High Court iefusing to grant bail to the potitioner untit after examination of Rani Chaudhary. as a witness, gave a direction that on the commencement of thé trial, it should progped from ‘day-to- -day. Alleging that: his. two Advoeates are ‘not. prepared to appear in the case from day- to-day as the trial-is likely
“to be- prolonged. the’ petitioner has, filed the present application for .
; modification™ of the earlier order of this court by. the: deletion of the ,
.
direction that the trial should ‘proceed from day-to-day, |
We thinkit is an entirely. wholesome practice for the trial to go on'from day-to-day. It is most expedient that the trial before the court of a Session should. proceed .and be, dealt with continuously from its inception to its finish.. Not only will it result in expedition, it will also result in the elimination of manocuvre.and mischief. . It will be in the.interest of both the prosecution and the defence ‘that | the trial proceeds from day-to-day. It is necessary to realise that
_, Sessions cases must not be tried piecemeal. Before commencing atrial, a Sessions J udge must satisfy himself that all necessary evidence is-availablé, If it is not, he'mmay-postpone -the case, but only on the strongest possible ground and for the shortest possible period. Once the trial’ commences, ie should, except for a very pressing reason which makes an adjourntment: inevitable, Proceed de die in diem unt)
. the Arial is concluded: Te
“We are unable to. appreciate. the difficulty said: to be experienced byt the petitioner. . It is stated that his Advocate is finding it difficult . to attend the court from day-to-day. It ig the duty of every Advecate, who accepts the brief ina ériminal case to attend the trial from day-teday. We cannot over-stress the duty of the Advocate to attend to
- the trial from day-t o-day. Having accepted the brief, he will be committing a breach of his professional duty, if-he so fails to attend. |
The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition: is, therefore, dismissed. .
% '
HSK. — oe " Petition dismissed.