Don't grant unnecessary adjournments: SC tells lower courts

New Delhi: Distressed over the “common practice” of trial courts granting long adjournments for minor reasons, the Supreme Court has asked its subordinate judiciary not to resort to such practice and be a “mute spectator” to the “whims and facies” of lawyers. A bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said that trial court judges cannot abandon their responsibility by giving in to the demands of adjournments and become mute spectators to the way the proceedings are conducted. “We hope and trust that trial courts shall keep in mind the statutory provisions and the interpretation placed by this court and not be guided by their own thinking or should not become mute spectators when a trial is being conducted by allowing the control to the counsel for the parties. [caption id=“attachment_785539” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  The apex court has said that judges shouldn’t be mute spectators in a trial. Reuters[/caption] “They have their roles to perform. They are required to monitor. They cannot abandon their responsibility,” the bench said. The bench said that the justice system cannot be left to the whims and fancies of the parties or their counsel and trial courts should not grant unnecessary adjournments. “The criminal justice system has to be placed on a proper pedestal and it cannot be left to the whims and fancies of the parties or their counsel. A trial judge cannot be a mute spectator to the trial being controlled by the parties…” the bench said. The court also asked lawyers to not bring any kind of disrespect to the fairness of a trial “by taking recourse to subterfuges for procrastinating the same”. “It is apt to note here that this Court expressed its distress that it has become a common practice and regular occurrence that the trial Courts flout the legislative command with impunity,” the bench said. The apex court made the observations while taking into account the trial court proceedings in a suicide case in Punjab in which examination of witnesses took more than two years due to unnecessary adjournments granted by the lower court at the request of the accused and his counsel. “As is demonstrable from the record, trial was conducted in an extremely haphazard and piecemeal manner. Adjournments were granted on a mere asking. Cross-examination of witnesses were deferred without recording any special reason and dates were given after a long gap,” the apex court said. The apex court said Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates that once a case reaches the stage of examination of witnesses, the proceedings “shall be continued from day-to-day until all witnesses in attendance have been examined” and if an adjournment is granted, reasons for the same have to be recorded in writing. “It neither requires Solomon’s wisdom nor Aurgus-eyed scrutiny to observe that the trial was conducted in an absolute piecemeal manner as if the entire trial was required to be held at the mercy of the counsel. This was least expected from the learned trial Judge,” the bench said. PTI