SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 1745

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJAY RASTOGI, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Mukesh Singh – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 8905 of 2022
Decided On : 30-09-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Bhuwan Raj, Manju Savita, M.A. Alim Majid, Anubhav Mehrotra.

Adherence to Section 309 Cr.P.C. for expeditious trial proceedings.

Headnote:

Bail Quashing - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 302, 324, 504 and 506 IPC - Section 309 Cr.P.C.

Fact of the Case:

The special leave petitions were filed to quash the bail granted to the respondent facing trial for various offences.

Finding of the Court:

The court granted permission to file special leave petitions and emphasized the need for expeditious trial proceedings in recording the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.

Issues: Delay in trial proceedings and adherence to Section 309 Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the delay in recording the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, emphasizing the mandate of Section 309 Cr.P.C. for expeditious trial proceedings.

Final Decision: Permission to file special leave petitions was granted, and the court emphasized the need for expeditious trial proceedings in recording the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.

ORDER :

1. Permission to file special leave petitions is granted.

2. The present special leave petitions have been filed for quashing of the bail granted to respondent no. 2 in both the petitions who are facing trial for offences under Sections 302, 324, 504 and 506 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs this Court that there are three eye-witnesses as per the calendar of witnesses and charge sheet has been filed and statement of PW-1 by this time has been recorded which took almost three months to conclude. So far as statement of PW-2 is concerned, part of the examination-in-chief was recorded on 21.09.2022 and despite request been made the mandate of Section 309 Cr.P.C. is not being followed which has been considered by this Court in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220. The mandate of law itself postulate that examination-in-chief followed with cross-examination is to be recorded either on the same day or on the day following. In other words, there should not be any ground for adjournment in recording the examination-in-chief/cross-examination of the prosecution witness, as the case may be.

3. We do not want to dilate at this stage since the trial is pending but we would like to observe that the learned trial judge may take a note of the judgment of this Court in reference to Section 309 Cr.P.C. and not only expedite the trial but the examination-in-chief/cross-examination is to be recorded either on the same day or on the day following but no long adjournment should be granted while recording the statement of prosecution witnesses.

4. List after six weeks.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top