L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE Criminal Revision Cases were listed for admission on 28-8-2002. This Court ordered notice before admission. On service of notice the respondents entered appearance. Thereafter they were listed for admission. On 11-12-2002 there was no representation for the petitioners. Hence the cases were directed to be listed for orders on 13-12-2002. On that day also there was no representation and with a view to give further chance to the petitioners the matters were directed to be listed for dismissal today. Even today there is no response when the case is called. Hence this Court is constrained to decide the matter on merits.

( 2 ) THE 1st respondent filed two complaints before the Court of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioners herein. They came to be numbered as C. C. Nos. 375 and 387 of 1999. The same were pending trial. In the meanwhile, the petitioners filed T. S. No. 51 of 1999 on the file of the II Civil Judge (Senior Division), Howrah against the 1st respondent for recovery of certain amounts as well as for a permanent injunction restraining the 1st respondent from using certain cheques. They also filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1, CPC seeking a direction to the 1st respondent not to take advantage of the cheques given to it. Those are the cheques which are the subject matter of the Revision. On the ground that the Civil Court, which has the competent jurisdiction, has passed order of injunction the petitioners filed Crl. M. P. Nos. 3061 and 3062 of 2002 in the two C. Cs. under Section 309, Cr. P. C. with a request to adjourn the proceedings till the disposal of the title suit pending before the Civil Court at Howrah. The trial Court dismissed the application through a common order dated 20th August, 2002. Hence the Revision.

( 3 ) THE relief claimed by the petitioners in the applications filed by them was to adjourn the proceedings in C. C. Nos. 375 and 389/99 till the disposal of the title suit pending before the Civil Court at Howrah. The applications were filed under Section 309, Cr. P. C. The nature of the relief claimed by the petitioners is similar to the one under Section 10, CPC.

( 4 ) SECTION 309 of Cr. P. C. indicates the pace at which the trial of the proceedings before the Criminal Courts has to take place. Under sub-section (1), the examination of witnesses has to be undertaken on day-to-day basis once it commences. The Courts are required to record reason for granting any adjournment beyond the following day. Adjournments before the commencement of trial also are not a matter of course. Even where such adjournments are granted, the same are to be subject to such terms as the trial Court may impose. The purport of Section 309 is that expeditious trials is the Rule and adjournments are an exception.

( 5 ) THE concept of sub judice is prevalent only in civil proceedings. Section 10 of CPC puts a bar on a Civil Court to proceed with the trial of a suit in which the matter in issue is directly and substantially is in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties or someone claiming through them. The stay of trial of a subsequent suit is not a matter of course. Several conditions, such as, there being two suits, one filed previously and the other at a subsequent stage, the subject matter in the suit subsequently filed being substantially in issue in the one which is previously filed, both the suits have the same parties or the representatives, the Court in which the previous suit is pending having jurisdiction to try the subsequent suit also, etc. , need to be established. The underlying object is to avoid conflicting decisions on the same subject matter between the same parties.

( 6 ) THE parameters of trial of criminal proceedings are altogether different. The main object of the proceedings is to bring the accused to justice. The lis is mainly between the State and the accused, except whe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document