Back
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
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.
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.
Courts expect strict adherence to time bound schedules and specific directions, and may issue notices to explain lapses in compliance.
Point of Law : Adjournments should be ordinarily limited to three/four times in the life of the suit as also as per the provisions of Order 17 CPC.
The court emphasized that routine adjournments in civil proceedings undermine justice, necessitating strict adherence to statutory limits and the imposition of costs for delays.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 mandates that trials should not be unduly delayed, balancing procedural fairness with judicial efficiency.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on seeking adjournments, especially on the ground of illness of the lawyer, and the need for expeditious disposal of cases.
Repeated adjournments aimed at delaying proceedings are unacceptable, emphasizing the need for timely resolutions in execution of decree.
The main legal point established is the strict adherence to Section 309 of Cr.P.C., requiring expeditious trials and continuous examination of witnesses, with adjournments only granted for special re....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
