LT. COL. S. J. CHAUDHARY versus STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)

LT. ·coL. s. J; CHAUDHARY

' STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) January 17, 1984

[9 CmNNAPPA REDDY, E.S. VENKATARAMIA.H AND R. B. MISRA, Jlj

Criminal Procedure-Trial by.sessions coutt to p~oceedfron1 di:ly to dliy. Triill- · when coulcf be adjot~rned. · · . · .

~racti~e-Duty oi Advocate.

The petitioner sought modification of the Court's order that the tri3.l -should proCeed from daY to day· on the ground .that his advoCates were··nof prepared to app~ar in the. case fr6m -day to day as the trial Was likely to be. prolonged.

D. · .--D.ismissing the. p~tition,

HELD : · It will b~ in .. the l.Oterest of both the prosecution and the defence· . th.at the trial proceeds fro1n day-_tO-day. Before ·commencing trial, Sessions Jud&e rn.ust ·satisfy· him5~1f that all nxessary ·evidence iS available: If it is not, l1e . .may _postp::>ne the case, but only _on the stron'g:esi Possible grourid and for ~e shortest p_ossible period. Once· thi: tfial commences;· .he should, except for very .piessing · , reason which make:~ an· adjoUrnment inevitable, .Pfoceed ·de die_ in .diem un.til the '7--trial is concluded: · [439 C·DJ ·

. It _is th~ duty Of every advocaie who _acccPts. the· brief in criminal case to --'-attend. the tria! ·from day-to-day.. -Having accePted the briet he will be committing -7 .... ~ b~each- of· his pr~fessional duty, ·if he.so fails to attend. · r439 B-F']

. CRIMil'i~L APPELLATE JuR1SmcrmN : Criminal Misc. Petition No.· 284 of 1984 in Sp,cia:l Leave Petn. (Cr!.) No: 3000 of 1983.

· . K. L. Sharma, K. K. Mohan and Mrs.' Geeta~iali Mohari for the Petitioner,·

K.G. Bhagat, Additiooal Solicitor General, R.D. Agarwaz and

. R.N. Poddar for the· Respondent.

• The Order of the Court_ was delivered by :

CiUNNAPPA REODY, 1. By an order dated December l!, 1983, this.court while dismissing petition fo~ speCial leave to appeal filed:

against.an order of the Del.hi High Cou~t refusing to grant bail to the p;,titioner until after examination of Rani Chaudhaj as witness, gwe direction that on the commencement of the ttial, it should pro'if'ed from <:lay-to-day. Alleging t)lat his two Advocates are not prepared .to appoar in the case from day-to-day as the trio! is Hkelv to be prolonged. tho petitit'~1er has. fikd the present application for modification•or the earlier 6rder of this cout t by the deletion of• the • 'directio·n tint. the trial should proceed from day-to-da:y. . ·,.A • • ... • We think'it is an entirely.wh0leso111e practice for the trial to go ( on :from day-io-dav .. It is .most expedient that the tr;al before the \ court of Session shoukl proceed. and be dealt. with continuo~sly from its incepcion to its finish: Not only ,;111 it rcsuJi.in expedition, it will also result in the elimination of.mailOeuvre. and mischief, It will be in the interest of both the pros,ecution an.d the defence that ~ • the trial proceeds from dav-to-dav. ·Sessions cases must not. bo tried. pi0ecemeul. Before commendng It' is necessary to realise that · trial, Sessions Judge. must satisfy himself that all necessary evidence. is available. ·u it is noi, he.·may·postpone ·the case, but only on the strongest possible ground and for the shortest possibl!' perfod. Once the trial commences, lle ·should, except. fof verv press'lng reason "'hich makes an adjourrAllent ·hievitable, proceed de die in diem .. until the trial .is concluded, · . . . . . . . . .

. ·. - . We are µ~able to.appreciate the difficulty said to be experienced · ·. "r by the 'petitioner.· It is stated that his Advocate is finding it difficult . _to attend the court from day-to-day: It is the duty of every Advccate, who accepts the brief in criminal case to a.ttend the trial frcmday-tc-day. We cannot over-stress the duty· of ihe Advocate to attend to -~ the trial froth day-to.-day. ·Having accepted the brief, he will be committing breach of his profossional duty; if.he so fails to attend . . The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is, therefore, dismissed. . ·