Revert To Practice Of Conducting Trial On Day To Day Basis: Supreme Court Issues Guidelines

The Supreme Court has asked all the High Courts to issue a circular to the respective District Judiciaries with respect to the expeditious proceedings in every inquiry or trial.

A Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) was filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), challenging the Order of the High Court, which granted bail to a rape accused.

The two-Judge Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed, “The practice of conducting trials on a day to day basis more particularly in important or sensitive cases as was the tradition about thirty years ago has been given a complete go-by. We sincerely believe that it is high time that the courts revert to that practice. For the purpose of reverting to the old practice, it is necessary to understand the current social, political and administrative scenario including the way the Police are functioning. All the High Courts need to constitute a Committee to discuss this issue very seriously for the benefit of their respective district judiciaries.”

The Bench remarked that one of the significant factors contributing to delays in the justice system is the discretionary practice of noncontinuous criminal trials, where evidence is heard by the Court in piecemeal fashion, with cases effectively spread out over the course of many months or even years.

“While limited judicial or court resources and a shortage of available court time due to the volume of cases are often cited for the use of this discretionary practice, the costs of non-continuous trials to both parties and to the justice system as a whole can far outweigh the perceived benefits”, it added.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Archana Pathak Dave represented the Petitioner/CBI while Advocate Anjan Datta represented the Respondent/Accused.

Case Background

When the High Court granted bail to the Respondent-accused, he was already in custody for past 3 years and 5 months and it has been almost a year that it ordered his release on bail. The victim had stepped into the witness box and her oral evidence was recorded. The Supreme Court had earlier granted one week’s time to the Respondent to file his counter affidavit and also called for an appropriate report from the Trial Court regarding the status of trial.

In pursuant to that, the Court received the Status Report from the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) i.e., the Special Court, explaining in what circumstances the cross-examination of the victim had to be deferred and why the witnesses are being examined in piecemeal. The said report revealed that the Trial Judge had to discontinue further cross-examination of the victim as all of a sudden, she fell ill. The same was adjourned by four months. In these circumstances, the Apex Court had to decide this issue.

Necessity for the High Courts to issue a Circular

The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “The Chief Justices of the High Courts may direct their administrative side to issue a circular to the respective district judiciaries stating as under:

[1] The proceedings in every inquiry or trial shall be held expeditiously.

[2] When the stage of examination of witnesses starts such examination shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in the attendance have been examined except for special reasons to be recorded in writing.

[3] When the witnesses are in attendance before the Court no adjournment or postponement shall be granted without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing.

[4] The Court should not grant the adjournment to suit the convenience of the advocate concerned except on very exceptional grounds like bereavement in the family and similar exceptional reasons duly supported by memo. Be it noted that the said inconvenience of an advocate is not a “Special Reason” for the purpose of bypassing the immunity of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.

[5] In case of non-cooperation of accused or his counsel, the following shall be kept in mind:

a. In case of non-cooperation of the counsel, the Court shall satisfy itself whether the non cooperation is in active collusion with the accused to delay the trial. If it is so satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing, it may, if the accused is on bail, put the accused on notice to show cause why the bail cannot be cancelled.

b. In cases where the accused is not in collusion with lawyer and it is the lawyer who is not cooperating with the trial, the Court may for reason to be recorded, appoint an amicus curiae for the accused and fix a date for proceeding with cross-examination/trial.

c. The Court may also in appropriate cases impose cost on the accused commensurate with the loss suffered by the witness including the expenses to attend the court.

d. In case when the accused is absent and the witness is present for examination, in that case the Court can cancel the bail of accused if he is on bail. (Unless an application is made on his behalf seeking permission for his counsel to proceed to examine the witness present even in his absence, provided the accused gives an undertaking in writing that, he would not dispute, his identity as a particular accused in the case.)

[6] The Presiding Officer of each Court may evolve the system for framing a schedule of constructive working days for examination of witnesses in each case, well in advance, after ascertaining the convenience of counsel on both sides.

[7] The summons or process could be handed over to the Public Prosecutor in-charge of the case to cause them to be served on the witnesses, as per schedule fixed by the Court."

Court’s Observations

The Court observed that it is no longer possible to question the legitimacy of the right to speedy trial as a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“The essence of Article 21 of the Constitution lies not only in ensuring that no citizen is deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law, but also that such procedure ensures both fairness and an expeditious conclusion of the trial. … The right to speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 of the constitution of India”, it reiterated.

The Court disapproved the practice prevailing in the Trial Courts across the country that the examination-in-chief of a particular witness is recorded in a particular month and his cross-examination would follow in particular subsequent month.

“The legal position is that once the examination of witnesses starts the court concerned must continue the trial from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined (except those whom the public prosecutor has given up). We are at pains to note that it is almost a common practice and regular occurrence that the trial courts flout the said mandate with impunity. Even when witnesses are present, cases are adjourned on far less serious reasons or even on flimsy grounds. The legislature itself has frowned at granting adjournment on flimsy grounds”, it further remarked.

The Court noted that the emphasis of Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) cannot be overlooked and must not be overlooked by any Judicial Officer who tries a criminal case, much less by the higher officers, like the Sessions Judges presiding over the Sessions Court, where serious offences are being tried day in and day out.

“Over a period of time, this Court in many of its Judgments and orders has said that it is the quality of the evidence that is important and not the quantity. If examination of unnecessary witnesses is delaying the trial, it would serve no good purpose”, it also noted.

Furthermore, the Court said that it is the Public Prosecutor who could be said to be in-charge of the criminal trial, but at the same time, if the Court finds that unnecessary examination of the witnesses is protracting the trial, then definitely it is a matter of concern.

“This aspect should be looked into by the Trial Judge himself. The Trial Judge should ask the Public Prosecutor why he wants to examine a particular witness”, it added.

Conclusion and Directions

According to ASG, the Public Prosecutor in-charge of the trial intends to examine as many as 30 witnesses and at one point of time, the prosecution wanted to examine almost 60 witnesses.

“However, later wisdom dawned upon the learned Public Prosecutor and now he has brought down the number to 30. … We fail to understand why the Public Prosecutor wants to examine 30 witnesses in a trial for the offence of rape. What is the idea in multiplying the witnesses on one particular issue or the other”, it asked.

The Court, therefore, directed the Public Prosecutor to ensure that the victim remains present for the further cross-examination.

“Once the oral evidence of the victim is completed, the Trial Court should make all possible endeavour to see that the other witnesses are examined at the earliest and the trial is completed with judgment by 31-12-2025. … It is needless to clarify that the respondent - accused is duty bound to comply with all the conditions imposed in the bail order passed by the High Court and fully cooperate for expeditious disposal of the trial”, it directed and concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Petition and directed the Registry to forward one copy each of its Order to all the High Courts at the earliest.

Cause Title- The Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1155)

Appearance:

Petitioner: ASG Archana Pathak Dave, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates Sayooj Mohandas, V.V.V. Pattabhi Ram, Chitrangda Rastaravara, and Rahul Thanwani.

Respondent: AOR Vishal Arun Mishra, Advocates Anjan Datta, and Ishita Srivastava.

Click here to read/download the Judgment