The pendency of an appeal before the FERA Board does not warrant an indefinite adjournment or postponement of a criminal trial. However, the court may grant a reasonable time for the disposal of the appeal before the FERA Board, considering the circumstances of the case.

This is an application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to set aside the order dated 22-12-1997 in Crl. M.P. No. 989 of 1997 in C.C. No. 881/93 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan (E.O. II) Egmore, Madras.

2.The petitioner/accused filed an application under Section 309 of Cr. P.C. in Crl. M.P. No. 907/97 in C.C. No. 881/93 before the lower Court by stating as follows :-

"The petitioner/accused earlier filed an application for adjournment on producing the stay order dated 20-11-1997. This Hon'ble Court has dismissed the said application. The petitioner/accused wants to get clarification of the position and effect of the stay order. Hence the matter may be adjourned to some other date. Hence it is just and necessary to adjourn the above case to some other date to cross-examine the P.W. 1 examined in the case today.

Hence it is just and necessary to adjourn the above case for cross examining the Witness P.W. 1 and thus render justice.'

3.After hearing the learned Counsel, the lower Court passed the following order on 22-12-1997 in Crl. M.P. No. 989/97 as follows :-

.... It appears from the records that the Counsel for the accused has been seeking adjournment saying some reason or other .......... Leaving all those proceedings to the discretion of the complainant i.e. the Department, the accused has been sleeping over the matter, and after the complaint being filed the accused is repeatedly filing applications after applications seeking adjournment. I find no reason in this application also to adjourn the case. ....

"4.Aggrieved against the said order the petitioner/accused filed this application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to set aside the order dated 22-12-1997 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 989/97 in C.C. No. 881/93. There is no other prayer set out in this petition except to set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate negativing the prayer of the petitioner to adjourn the case to another date.

5.Section 309 of Cr. P.C. under which the petition in Crl. M.P. No. 989/97 was filed before the lower Court reads as follows :-

309(1) : In every enquiry or trial, the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the same shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded.

"6.A perusal of Section 309(1) of Cr. P.C., which was invoked by the petitioner/accused in this case to adjourn the case, shows that for reasons to be recorded in writing the case can be adjourned to a particular date, and no other relief can be granted under Section 309 of Cr. P.C. So also Section 309(2) of Cr. P.C. states that if the Court after taking cognizance of an offence or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement, of, or adjourn, the trial, it may from time to time for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the samefor such time as it considers reasonable. Therefore there is no question of absolute or limited stay being granted either under Section 309(1) or under Section 309(2) of Cr. P.C., and reasonable adjournment till such time for reasons to be recorded can be granted, and the case has to be adjourned to a particular date and not indefinitely for unspecified period or till the disposal of the appeal before FERA Board at Delhi as in the present case. The words "for such time" in Section 309(2) of Cr. P.C. emphasises the fact that there should be specified time or time limit for adjournment or postponement of the trial and not an indefinite period or unspecified time limit for adjournment of trial in the criminal case.

7.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr. B. Kumar contended that a Division Bench of Madras High Court in the decision reported inAssistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras and Another v. Hamee