Grant of adjournments by trial Courts for non-acceptable reasons 'makes the trial an apology for trial and compels the whole society to suffer chicanery', says the Supreme Court expressing its 'agony and anguish' over trials turning into a farce

Expressing its “agony and anguish at the manner in which trials in respect of serious offences relating to corruption are being conducted by the trial courts”, the Supreme Court in its judgment in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab has reminded the trial Courts of their sacred duty to see that the trial is conducted as per law.

“The trial courts are expected in law to follow the command of the procedure relating to trial and not yield to the request of the counsel to grant adjournment for non-acceptable reasons”, said the Court.

The Supreme Court has asked trial Courts not to yield to the request of the counsel to grant adjournment for non-acceptable reasons

A Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice R.F. Nariman made these remarks while while hearing  an appeal directed against the judgment  passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana affirming the order of the Trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with a default clause.

In the said case, the Trial Court had permitted cross-examination of a prosecution witness 20 months after his chief examination. The Apex Court said that permitting cross-examination of the witness after a year and 8 months had resulted in “allowing ample time to pressurize the witness and to gain over him by adopting all kinds of tactics”

Saying that adjournments are sought on the drop of a hat by the counsel, even though the witness is present in court, contrary to all principles of holding a trial, the Court observed : 

“There is no cavil over the proposition that there has to be a fair and proper trial but the duty of the court while conducting the trial to be guided by the mandate of the law, the conceptual fairness and above all bearing in mind its sacrosanct duty to arrive at the truth on the basis of the material brought on record. If an accused for his benefit takes the trial on the path of total mockery, it cannot be countenanced.”

The Court also expressed its displeasure over the trial Courts granting adjournments for cross-examination after the examination-in-chief of a witness is over without recording special reasons for the same despite the clear requirement of law to that effect.

Reminding the trial Courts of their “sacred duty to see that the trial is conducted as per law”, the Apex Court cautioned them that “If adjournments are granted in this manner it would tantamount to violation of rule of law and eventually turn such trials to a farce. It is legally impermissible and jurisprudentially abominable. The trial courts are expected in law to follow the command of the procedure relating to trial and not yield to the request of the counsel to grant adjournment for non-acceptable reasons.”

The Supreme Court also said that it is not all appreciable to call a witness for cross-examination after such a long span of time.  

“It is imperative if the examination-in-chief is over, the cross-examination should be completed on the same day. If the examination of a witness continues till late hours the trial can be adjourned to the next day for cross-examination. It is inconceivable in law that the cross-examination should be deferred for such a long time. It is anathema to the concept of proper and fair trial”, said the Court.

The Bench added that the duty of the court is to see that not only the interest of the accused as per law is protected but also the societal and collective interest is safe-guarded.

Discomforted and distressed by the practice of grant of adjournments by the trial Courts for unacceptable reasons, the Bench directed that the copies of the judgment be sent to the Chief Justices of all the High Courts for circulating the same among the trial Judges with a command to follow the principles relating to trial in a requisite manner and not to defer the cross-examination of a witness  at their pleasure or at the leisure of the defence counsel, “for it eventually makes the trial an apology for trial and compels the whole society to suffer chicanery.”

Girlfriend or concubine, who is not a blood relative of the husband cannot be arraigned as an accused along with husband in a prosecution brought at the instance of the wife under Section 498A IPC

The girlfriend or concubine of the husband who is not his blood relative cannot be made an accused along with him in a case alleging cruelty, held the Kerala High Court in a judgment pronounced on Wednesday.

Quashing criminal proceedings against a woman alleged to be the girlfriend of a husband against whom the case was registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the High Court of Kerala speaking through Justice B Kemal Pasha said :  "The de facto complainant (wife) has no case that the petitioner (girlfriend) has any blood relation with the 1st accused (husband) or that she is in any way related to him through marriage. Matters being so, it is evident that when the petitioner is merely styled as a girlfriend or as a concubine of the 1st accused (husband), she cannot be treated as a relatives of the 1st accused (husband) within the meaning of section 498A IPC (cruelty by husband or relatives) and therefore, an offence under section 498A IPC cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Therefore, she cannot be roped in an offence under section 498A read with section 34 IPC (common intention).”

The woman alleged to be the girlfriend of the husband was working as the supervisor of the husband in Bangalore. In the case registered by Pathanapuram police last year based on a complaint filed by the wife, alleging cruelty, the girlfriend was made the second accused while the husband was the first accused.

Section 498A of the IPC reads as follows:

"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-

(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."

The petitioner through her counsel  argued that a girlfriend cannot be treated as a relative of the husband and, therefore, section 498A cannot be invoked against her. To buttress his argument, the counsel relied on the Supreme Court's decisions on the same in U. Suvetha v. State [(2009) 6 SCC 757],  Sunita Jha v. State of Jharkhand (2010), and Vijeta Gajra v. State of NCT of Delhi (2010).

In U. Suvetha v. State (supra), the Apex Court took up for consideration the question as to the persons who could be charged under Section 498A IPC having particular regard to the phrase "relative of the husband" occurring in the said Section.

The Apex court said

“In the absence of any statutory definition, the term `relative' must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Ordinarily it would include father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece, grandson or grand-daughter of an individual or the spouse of any person. The meaning of the word `relative' would depend upon the nature of the statute. It principally includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption….

….By no stretch of imagination a girl friend or even a concubine in an etymological sense would be a `relative'. The word `relative' brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise.”

The Apex Court in U. Suvetha v. State  (supra) went on to hold that neither a girlfriend nor a concubine is a relative of the husband within the meaning of Section 498A IPC, since they were not connected by blood or marriage to the husband. 

The said decision of the Apex Court in U. Suvetha v. State (supra) was followed in Vijeta Gajra vs State of NCT of Delhi (supra) and Sunita Jha vs State of Jharkhand (supra) among others. 

The Kerala High Court, in deciding the above case, accepted the contentions of the petitioner, and allowed the petition by quashing the criminal proceedings against her.