- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Lt. Col. S.J Chaudhary v. State (Delhi Administration) .
Factual and Procedural Background
On December 2, 1983, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a Special Leave Petition that sought to challenge a Delhi High Court order refusing bail to the petitioner until after the examination of one Rani Chaudhary. While dismissing that petition, the Court directed that the forthcoming Sessions trial should proceed from day-to-day. The present application was filed by the same petitioner requesting modification of that directive, contending that his two advocates were unwilling to attend daily hearings because the trial was expected to be lengthy.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court should modify its earlier order by deleting the direction that the Sessions trial must proceed from day-to-day.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner claimed that his two advocates were not prepared to appear in court on a day-to-day basis due to the anticipated length of the trial.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court reaffirmed the importance of continuous hearings in Sessions trials, emphasizing that:
- Conducting the trial from inception to completion without breaks ensures expedition and prevents “manoeuvre and mischief.”
- It serves the interests of both prosecution and defence, as Sessions cases should not be tried piecemeal.
- A Sessions Judge should commence trial only when all necessary evidence is available; once begun, adjournments should be granted only for compelling reasons and for the shortest possible period.
- Advocates have a professional duty to attend criminal trials on a day-to-day basis once they accept a brief; failure to do so constitutes a breach of that duty.
Finding no compelling reason to depart from these principles, the Court concluded that the petitioner's difficulty was not justified.
Holding and Implications
Petition Dismissed.
The directive that the Sessions trial proceed from day-to-day remains intact. The immediate consequence is that the petitioner’s trial will continue without intermittent adjournments, and his counsel are expected to attend daily. The decision reiterates existing judicial expectations but does not establish a new legal precedent.
1. By an order dated December 2, 1983, this Court while dismissing a petition for special leave to appeal filed against an order of the Delhi High Court refusing to grant bail to the petitioner until after examination of Rani Chaudhary as a witness, gave a direction that on the commencement of the trial, it should proceed from day-to-day. Alleging that his two Advocates are not prepared to appear in the case from day-to-day as the trial is likely to be prolonged, the petitioner has filed the present application for modification of the earlier order of this Court by the deletion of the direction that the trial should proceed from day-to-day.
2. We think it is an entirely wholesome practice for the trial to go on from day-to-day. It is most expedient that the trial before the Court of Session should proceed and be dealt with continuously from its inception to its finish. Not only will it result in expedition, it will also result in the elimination of manoeuvre and mischief. It will be in the interest of both the prosecution and the defence that the trial proceeds from day-to-day. It is necessary to realise that Sessions cases must not be tried piecemeal. Before commencing a trial, a Sessions Judge must satisfy himself that all necessary evidence is available. If it is not, he may postpone the case, but only on the strongest possible ground and for the shortest possible period. Once the trial commences, he should, except for a very pressing reason which makes an adjournment inevitable, proceed de die in diem until the trial is concluded.
3. We are unable to appreciate the difficulty said to be experienced by the petitioner. It is stated that his Advocate is finding it difficult to attend the court from day-to-day. It is the duty of every Advocate, who accepts the brief in a criminal case to attend the trial from day-to- day. We cannot over-stress the duty of the Advocate to attend to the trial from day-to-day. Having accepted the brief, he will be committing a breach of his professional duty, if he so fails to attend. The criminal miscellaneous petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Alert