1. Request for additional time to conclude a trial under the SC/ST Act. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 2301
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, CJI., DEEPAK GUPTA, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
Indu Mishra - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. - Respondents
M.A. No. 279 of 2019 in SLP(Crl.) No. 5062 of 2014
Decided On : 15-03-2019
Important Points
Courts expect strict adherence to time bound schedules and specific directions, and may issue notices to explain lapses in compliance.
Subject
Criminal Law - Trial Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
Additional Time - Trial of the Case - The court issued notice to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court and the Presiding Officer to explain the serious lack of concern in adhering to the time bound schedule for conclusion of the case, as ordered by the Court.
Fact of the Case:
The Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Deoria, Uttar Pradesh requested additional time to conclude the trial of the case. The Registry of the Court found discrepancies in the dates mentioned by the Presiding Officer and noted that seven adjournments had been granted, indicating a lack of concern in adhering to the time bound schedule.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found serious lack of concern on the part of the Presiding Officer to adhere to the time bound schedule for conclusion of the case as ordered by the Court. The Court issued notice to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court and the Presiding Officer to explain the lapse.
Issues: Lack of adherence to time bound schedule, granting of multiple adjournments, and failure to comply with specific directions of the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the serious lack of concern in adhering to the time bound schedule for conclusion of the case and the granting of multiple adjournments despite specific directions from the Court.
Final Decision: The matter was listed for further consideration after four weeks with the report of the Registrar General and the Presiding Officer.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Sharma, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, Adv. Mr. M.R. Shamshad, AOR Ms. Anu Gupta, AOR
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Sharma, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, Adv. Mr. M.R. Shamshad, AOR Ms. Anu Gupta, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Request for extension of time to conclude trial proceedings. (Para 1 )
3. Presiding Officer provided incorrect dates and granted multiple adjournments, showing a lack of concern for the court-mandated time-bound schedule. (Para 2 , 4 )
4. Judicial officers must strictly adhere to time-bound schedules for trial conclusion and maintain accurate records of proceedings. (Para 2 , 4 )
5. Notice issued to the Registrar General and Presiding Officer for explanation; matter listed for reports after four weeks. (Para 3 , 5 )
6. Does the granting of multiple adjournments despite time-bound directions constitute a judicial lapse?
Yes, granting multiple adjournments and providing incorrect dates for arguments, despite specific directions to complete a hearing within a time-bound manner, indicates a serious lack of concern for adhering to court-ordered schedules. (Para 2 , 4 )
7. What is the court's remedy when a presiding officer fails to abide by time-bound trial directions?
The court may issue notices to the presiding officer and the Registrar General of the relevant High Court to explain the lapses in abiding by the court's orders. (Para 3 )
ORDER :
1. The matter has been put up for consideration of the request made by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Deoria, Uttar Pradesh for grant of additional time to conclude the trial of the case.
2. The information obtained by the Registry of this Court under orders of the Chief Justice on the administrative side shows that the dates mentioned by the learned Presiding Officer in his letter showing dates fixed for arguments, are not correct. That apart, the information obtained by the Registry from the National Judicial Data Grid would go to show that from 29.1.2019, seven adjournments have been granted by the Presiding Officer on different grounds, details of which are available. This would prima facie show serious lack of concern on the part of the Presiding Officer to adhere to the time bound schedule for conclusion of the case that this Court had ordered.
3. We, therefore, issue notice to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court and to the Presiding Officer to explain what the Court perceives to be a serious lapse on the part of the Presiding Officer to abide by the orders of this Court.
4. All that we would like to observe at this stage is that we do not understand what kind of inspections the Presiding Officer had carried out on as many as two occasions, which inhibited him from hearing the case. We also fail to understand as to how inspite of specific directions of this Court to complete the hearing of the case within a time bound manner, the Presiding Officer has granted as many as three adjournments to the accused. The aforesaid three adjournments have been granted after the case was fixed for arguments on 29.1.2019.
5. List the matter after four weeks with the report of the Registrar General, as well as, the Presiding Officer.
