The main legal point established is that once the examination of a witness begins, the trial should proceed continuously, with adjournments only granted for the strongest possible reasons, and the duty of the investigating officer to ensure witness presence.

JUDGMENT

Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J. - Challenge in this revisional application is to the order passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basirhat, North 24 Parganas in S.C. No. 13 (7) 09, S.T. No. 2(12) 09 arising out of Basirhat Police Station Case No. 199 dated 3rd June, 2006 under Section 376/493 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. In consonance with the statutory mandate as laid down under Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, I am not inclined to disclose the name of the lady who set the criminal administration of justice into motion, allegedly being exploited sexually by Siraj Gazi, the accused person. She will, hereinafter, be referred to as a victim girl.

3. Briefly stated, the accused Siraj Gazi picked up a relationship with the victim girl, promised to marry her, gained her confidence, and established sexual relation with her. Consequent upon such sexual union the victim girl became pregnant and Siraj Gazi refused to shoulder the responsibility. The victim girl informed the local Police Station about the incident and having found commission of offence, cognizable in nature Officer-in-charge of Basirhat Police Station registered Basirhat P.S. Case No. 199 dated 3rd June, 2006 under Section 376/493 of the Indian Penal Code and took up investigation which culminated into submission of charge sheet against the accused person.

4. After commencement of trial on 10th February, 2010 prosecution examined Fazilul @ Fazlul Haque Gazi as P.W. 1 in part. After his examination-in-chief was over learned Defence Counsel asked a sngle question to that witness and learned Trial Court deferred the cross examination on the prayer of learned Defence Counsel. Subsequent thereto said witness did not turn up to adduce evidence.

5. Learned Trial Court issued witness warrant but failed to ensure the presence of the said witness and ultimately on 14th December, 2010 learned Trial Court observed following:-

'In such a position prosecution was allowed to bring and examine other witnesses. I am of the decision that P.W. 1 is not interested at all to proceed with this case. Let the evidence of P.W. 1 be expunged from this case record. W.W.A. is recalled as issued against the witnesses P.W. 1 named Fajlul Haque Gazi.'

6. Aggrieved by the said order passed by learned Trial Court, the victim has preferred this application under consideration.

7. In AKIL VS. STATE reported in 2013 AIR SCW 59 Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to give direction upon the Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges by holding inter alia:-

'28. In this context some of the decisions which have specifically dealt with such a situation which has caused serious inroad into the criminal jurisprudence can also be referred to. In one of the earliest cases reported in Badri Prasad v. Emperor (1912) 13 Cri. L.J. 861, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has stated the legal position as under:

...Moreover, we wish to point out that it is most inexpedient for a Sessions trial to be adjourned. The intention of the Code is that a trial before a Court of Session should proceed and be dealt with continuously from its inception to its finish. Occasions may arise when it is necessary to grant adjournments, but such adjournments should be granted only on the strongest possible ground and for the shortest possible period.(Emphasis added)

29. In a decision reported in Chandra Sain Jain and Ors. v. The State 1982 Cri. L.J. NOC 86 (ALL) a Single Judge has held as under while interpreting Section 309 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Merely because the prosecution is being done by C.B.I. or by any other prosecuting agency, it is not right to grant adjournment on their mere asking and the Court has to justify every adjournment if allowed, for, the right to speedy trial is part of fundamental rights envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution, 1979 Cri LJ 1036 (SC), Foll. (Emphasis added)

30. In the decision reported in The State v. Bilal Rai and Ors. 1985 Cri. L.J. NOC 38 (Delhi) it has