The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on seeking adjournments, especially on the ground of illness of the lawyer, and the need for expeditious disposal of cases.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. This Original Petition (Crl.) is one filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner is the 3rd accused in S.C. No. 82/2021 on the files of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Special Court (Additional Sessions Court-IV), Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

3. In this petition the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“(i) Direct the Additional District and Sessions Court-IV, Thiruvananthapuram to dispose of S.C. No. 82/2021 within a period 6 months taking into account of the illness of the Counsel for the petitioner as evident from Exhibit P4 Medical Certificate.

(ii) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iii) dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents.”

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted 3rd that the petitioner has been arrayed as accused in S.C. No. 82/2021, on alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (‘NDPS Act’ for short hereinafter). According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the earlier bail applications filed by the petitioner were dismissed as per Ext.P1 and P2 orders, subsequently the petitioner as well as the 4th accused were released on bail as per Ext.P3 order of this Court. It is submitted that, at the time when Ext.P2 order was passed, this Court directed the trial court to dispose of the case within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, in obedience to the directions of this Court the trial court proceeded with the trial and the petitioner was defended by Advocate Celine Wilfred of Trivandrum Bar. Though the lawyer representing the petitioner sought adjournment for a period of 6 months to conclude the trial pointing out her illness, the trial court not was inclined to grant the same.

5. The report from the learned Special Judge was called for and it was reported by the learned Special Judge that in accordance with the direction issued by this Court trial started in this case and prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-18 and Exts.P1 to P94 and MO1 to MO21 were marked. Now the case stands posted for examination of CW24, the one and only witness remaining on the side of the prosecution. It was also reported that by the time Advocate Celine Wilfred expired.

6. So the crux of the matter is adjournment sought for on the ground of illness of the lawyer, who subsequently died. In this connection, I am inclined to address the question as to what extent an Advocate has right to seek adjournment of trial, according to his/her convenience?

(a) Procedure under Code of Civil Procedure:

7. Order XVII pertains to adjournment of trial. Rule 1 states that if sufficient cause is shown, the Court may adjourn the hearing of a suit from time to time and such reasons shall be recorded in writing. However, the proviso to Rule 1 states that, in any case, no more than three adjournments shall be granted to a party during the hearing of the suit. Rule 2 of Order XVII states that costs may be imposed on the party seeking adjournment. Rule 2(b) further states that no adjournment shall be granted at the request of the party except where the circumstances are beyond the control of the party.

8. Advocates appearing for the parties usually seek adjournment for trial and hearing for multiple reasons. Order XVII of the C.P.C. governs adjournments in civil cases and Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. deals with powers of the criminal court to postpone or adjourn proceedings. Rule 2(c) of Order XVII provides that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court shall not be a ground for adjournment. Furthermore, Rule 2(d) of Order XVII provides that where the illness of a pleader or his inability to conduct the case for any reason i