Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2364
High Court of Delhi
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
Advocate Manish Kumar Khanna
Versus
State
W.P. (CRL). No. 1355 of 2014
Decided On : 05-11-2014
For the Petitioner: In person.
For the Respondent: Sanjay Lao, A.S.C.
The court emphasized that unless there is a grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law, it should refrain from interfering with the trial court's findings.
Headnote:
Adjournments - Criminal Procedure - Section 309 Cr. P.C. - 14th February, 2014 passed in Sessions Case No.11/2013 and 10th May, 2014 passed in Sessions Case No.10/2013 - Section 309 Cr. P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a defense counsel, filed a writ petition challenging the orders passed in two criminal cases where his application to impose costs on the prosecution for adjournments was declined. The petitioner argued that the prosecution's failure to produce witnesses and the prosecutor warranted heavy costs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial judge had taken necessary steps to ensure speedy trial and had judicially exercised discretion in not imposing costs on the prosecution. The court also noted that the delay did not infringe the petitioner's right to a speedy trial.
Issues: 1. Whether the orders caused a miscarriage of justice or violated the right to a speedy trial. 2. Whether the trial judge's discretion in not imposing costs was arbitrary. 3. Entitlement to costs imposed on the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unless there is a grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law, it should refrain from interfering with the trial court's findings. The court also emphasized that the imposition of costs was at the trial court's discretion and that the petitioner, as a defense counsel, was not entitled to receive the costs imposed on the prosecution.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found that the trial judge had taken necessary steps to ensure a speedy trial and had not erred in not imposing costs on the prosecution.
Pratibha Rani, J.
1. The Petitioner Shri Manish Kumar Khanna, Advocate has filed this Writ Petition in his individual capacity impugning the two different orders passed in two different cases i.e. order dated 14th February, 2014 passed in Sessions Case No.11/2013 tiled as State Vs. Gupreet Singh & Anr. in FIR No.23/2012 PS Special Cell and order dated 10th May, 2014 passed in Sessions Case No.10/2013 titled as State Vs. Arun Kumar & Ors. in FIR No.28/2012 PS Special Cell whereby his prayer to impose cost on the Prosecution, was declined.
2. In brief the case of the Petitioner is that he has been practicing on criminal side since the year 1998 and has been working to provide speedy justice to ordinary litigants and for that purpose has also been using the provisions of RTI Act to obtain necessary information in this regard. The Petitioner is a small time Advocate who is able to charge a very limited fee and his practice is limited to commercial quantity drug cases along with some murder and rape cases where the possibility of bail is not there. The Petitioner has seen that certain counsel having multiple cases do not appear in time in a particular matter and the result is that either the matters are delayed due to defence delays or even worse the counsel may not be present during the chief examination and is unable to comprehend the finer nuances of the chief examination and makes certain self goals during the cross examination. This causes serious prejudices to the ordinary litigants. Most of the time the adjournment is given for two to three months but if defence counsel is not available the attitude of the Court is harsh. Thus, only a defence counsel who appears on each and every date gets the right to raise the issue of adjournments so that he is not held responsible for the delay. Even the casual leave is not available to the defence counsel. The worst loss is not in term of money but loss of attention to the case and the counsel who has worked till mid-night on the case, lose interest if there is an adjournment and the problem is compounded when the litigant is not in a position to pay for the adjourned dates.
3. The grievance of the Petitioner in these two cases is that in both the matters neither the accused nor the defence counsel was responsible for the adjournments given by the learned Special Judge. Rather prosecution was to be blamed for adjournment as learned Special P.P. was not present resulting in adjournment of the case. In the circumstances his application praying for heavy costs to be imposed on prosecution for failure to examine the witnesses, should have been allowed by the Court but the applications have been dismissed. Since it was the duty of the prosecutor to ensure presence of witnesses and their examination, on his failure to do so the Court should have imposed heavy costs. The prayer made in the writ petition are as under:-
“1. Direct the Hon'ble Court to call for suitable number of witnesses on each date.
2. Direct the Hon'ble Court to impose costs more appropriately in the future for non-appearance of the witnesses and the prosecutor.
3. Direct the investigating agency to personally assure that the witnesses called do appear in the Hon'ble Court, and if they cannot appear then to arrange for the presence of an alternative witnesses with prior information to the defence counsels.
4. Direct the prosecution department to insure the presence of the prosecutors in the Hon'ble Court.
5. Impose a cost of rupees one lakh on the State for the above two matters to be paid to the Petitioner.”
4. Notice of the writ petition was given to the State and counter affidavit has been filed.
5. Both the parties have also filed their written submissions.
6. Both the parties submit that apart from the averments made in the writ petition, counter affidavit and the written submissions, they do not have to add anything.
7. Since the grievance of the Petitioner which has compelled him to file this writ p
