The provision of Section 309 Cr.P.C. of conducting the hearing on a day to day basis is not an absolute mandate.
Sub-section (1) of Section 309 provides that :“In every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded…”.
Thus, sub-section (1) permits adjournment beyond the following day, though not as a routine.
But, it has to be read along with sub-section (2) that says: “If the Court, after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody…”.
Therefore, sub-section (2) further permits adjournments.
The first Proviso to sub-section (2) further says that: “Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time”.
This implies that the proceedings can be adjourned for up to 15 days if the accused is in custody, but it also implies that if the accused is not in custody then the proceedings can be adjourned for a longer period.
Of course, there are certain other provisions in this section against unnecessary adjournments. However, the fact remains that while the mandate is to ensure a day-to-day hearing, it is permissible for the court to adjourn the proceedings of the trial wherever required.
The main practical reasons behind the long adjournments are lack of sufficient judicial strength and huge pendency in courts. There are only about 20,000 judges in India for a population of about 130 crore. More than 3 crore cases are pending in Indian courts, a large number of them for more than 10 years. You can imagine how 20000 judges can ensure day-to-day proceedings in all of the 3 crore cases at the same time (these numbers include judges and cases on the civil side also, and also in the high courts and Supreme Court). So, if you continue a particular trial on day-to-day basis, then all other trials in that court will suffer. Therefore, it is a balancing of adjusting the trials by way of adjournments, so that some time may be given to all trials y rotation.
There would be no solution to the problem of long adjournments in a trial unless and until the number of judges is increased substantially. But, nobody appears to be willing to do this.
Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.
.
