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.”