1. Challenge to the High Court's extension of time for concluding a criminal trial. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 870
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar, JJ.
Sanjiv Kumar Rajendrabhai Bhatt – Appellant
Versus
The State of Gujarat – Respondent
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2023 of 2023
Decided On : 20-02-2023
Important Points
The importance of expeditious disposal of criminal trials and criticism of approaching higher courts instead of cooperating with Trial Courts.
Subject
Criminal Law - Trial Proceedings
Headnote
KEYWORD: Extension of Time Subject: Criminal Procedure Code ACT SECTION LIST: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 309 SUMMARY: The court discussed the extension of time granted by the High Court for concluding a criminal trial. The petitioner had approached the court challenging the extension, but it was found that the special leave petition against the initial time frame had been dismissed earlier. The court emphasized the importance of expeditious disposal of criminal trials and criticized the petitioner for approaching the court instead of cooperating with the Trial Court. The petition was deemed frivolous and dismissed with costs.
Fact of the Case:
The High Court had initially fixed a time frame for concluding a trial, which was later extended. The petitioner challenged this extension in a special leave petition.Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner's approach to be frivolous and without substance, dismissing the petition with costs.Issues:
Extension of time for trial conclusion, Cooperation with Trial Court, Frivolous PetitionRatio Decidendi:
Importance of expeditious disposal of criminal trials, Dismissal of frivolous petitionsFinal Decision:
The petition was dismissed as frivolous with costs quantified at Rs.10,000 to be deposited with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority.Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, for the Appellant; Advocate, Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mayank Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Maninder Singh,Sr.Advocate, Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Advocate, Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, for the Appellant; Advocate, Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mayank Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Maninder Singh,Sr.Advocate, Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Advocate, Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims insufficient time for witness examination; respondents allege suppression of a prior dismissed challenge to the trial schedule. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. The petitioner suppressed a prior dismissed challenge and should cooperate with the trial court rather than filing frivolous petitions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. The grant of extension of time for trial is a matter between the Trial Court and the High Court. (Para 9 )
5. Petition dismissed as frivolous with costs imposed on the petitioner. (Para 10 , 11 )
6. What is the court's view on the deliberate suppression of a prior dismissed challenge in a subsequent petition?
The court views the omission of a prior dismissed challenge as likely deliberate rather than inadvertent, contributing to the petition being deemed frivolous and without substance. (Para 4 , 7 , 10 )
7. Who is the appropriate authority to decide on the extension of time for concluding a criminal trial?
The grant of extension of time for the disposal of proceedings is a matter to be handled between the Trial Court and the High Court. (Para 9 )
8. What is the expected conduct of parties regarding the timeline of a criminal trial?
Parties in a criminal trial should be interested in the expeditious disposal of the trial and should cooperate with the Trial Court to achieve this. (Para 5 , 9 )
ORDER
1. Vide order dated 04.10.2021, the High Court had initially fixed a time frame of nine months in concluding the trial. Thereafter, again by order dated 10.06.2022, the period was extended by six months. It appears that since the trial could not be completed within the said period, the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide letter dated 16.12.2022 requested for extension of six months for disposing of the case.
2. The learned Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 06.01.2023 granted extension till 31.03.2023 i.e. almost by a period of three months.
3. Shri Devadatt Kamat, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that a number of witnesses are not yet examined and direction as is issued would prevent the Trial Court to decide the matter in a judicious manner.
4. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned senior counsel appearing for the original complainant, submit that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that the order dated 04.10.2021, which had fixed the time schedule of nine months was challenged before this Court and the special leave petition challenging the same i.e. SLP (Crl) No.8615/2021 was dismissed by this Court vide, order dated 05.08.2022.
5. The parties in a criminal trial should be more interested in expeditious disposal of the trial.
6. When the learned Single Judge of the High Court has granted extension and that too on the second occasion, we do not find that there was any cause for the petitioner to have approached this Court by filing a special leave petition.
7. Though, Shri Devadatt Kamat, submits that non-mentioning of the order passed in the Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.8615/2021 is not deliberate but inadvertent, it is difficult to believe that such an important omission was inadvertent and not deliberate.
8. Though, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner has been indulging in delaying tactics and strictures have been passed against him on various occasions, we do not find it necessary to go into that aspect of the matter.
9. The petitioner, rather than approaching this Court, ought to have cooperated with the Trial Court for expeditious disposal of the proceedings. The grant of extension of time is a matter between the Trial Court and the High Court.
10. We find this petition to be totally frivolous and without substance. The same is, accordingly, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), to be deposited with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority, within a period of four weeks.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
