C482/1247/2021 of SHILPI LAWRENCE ELENJIKAL Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Parties
- Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma (PETITIONER)
- Parikshit Arvind Joshi” within stipulated time frame. Mr. B.S. Koranga, the learned (RESPONDENT)
Cites (0 resolved of 6 detected)
6 case citations detected in this judgment's own text, but none resolved to a judgment page in this build yet.
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHANDAT NAINITAL
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
24[TH ]SEPTEMBER, 2021
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.1247 of 2021
Between:
Ms. Shilpi Lawrence Elenjikal
…Applicant
and
State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. B.S. Koranga.
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. P.S. Uniyal, learned Nos. 1 to 3. Brief Holder for the State.
Brief Holder for the State.
Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,
The informant/victim has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Code”) to direct the learned 2[nd] Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar to examine the prosecution witnesses and conclude the Sessions Trial No.68 of 2020, “State vs. Parikshit Arvind Joshi” within stipulated time frame. Mr. B.S. Koranga, the learned
counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that even earlier also, the learned trial court was directed by this High Court to expedite the said trial.
2. Mr. P.S. Uniyal, the learned Brief Holder for the State supported the submissions of the applicant.
3. Heard.
4. The speedy and expeditious trial has been envisaged under Section 309 of the Code. The intention of the Legislature was that the proceedings in enquiry or trial are not adjourned unnecessarily and are conducted expeditiously. criminal trial has its own gravity and sanctity. Once examination of witnesses begins, the same has to be continued from day-to-day. Only if, there are “special reasons”, which reasons should find in the order for adjournment, that alone can confer jurisdiction on the Court to adjourn the case. The trial court has to be mindful that for the protection of witnesses and also in the interest of justice the mandate of Section 309 of the Code has to be complied with and evidence should be recorded on continuous basis.
5. Therefore, the learned trial court is again directed to carry out the mandate of Section 309 of the Code as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Shambhu Nath Singh and others, (2001) 4 SCC 667, Mohd. Khalid vs. State of West Bengal,
(2002) 7 SCC 334 and Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220. The learned trial court is further directed to examine the prosecution witnesses as soon as possible.
6. With these directions, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1247 of 2021, filed under Section 482 of the Code, is disposed of.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 24[th] September, 2021 Neha