RAMJI GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 4236 of 2026

Ramji Gupta
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                        :    Mohan Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                   :    G.A.

Court No. - 78
                    HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and
perused material on record.
2. The present application has been filed by the applicant with prayer to
direct the learned trial Court to decide/expedite the Sessions Trial No. 577
of 2024 (State vs. Akash Gupta and others) and Session Trial No. 576 of
2024 (State vs. Nirmala Devi) arising out of Case Crime No. 152 of 2024,
under Sections147, 323, 504, 506, 308, 304 IPC, P.S. Khampur, District
Deoria, pending before Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Deoria
within stipulated period.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the proceedings before
the court concerned be directed to be concluded in a time bound manner.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that matter pertains to
the year 2024, which is still pending and has not been decided till now.
Therefore, he requested that a direction to learned trial Court be issued to
decide the aforesaid case within a stipulated period of time.
4. Learned A.G.A. has no objection in this regard if the Court below is not
already overloaded with huge pendency of such cases.
5. Hon’ble Apex Court in Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain vs. State of
Maharashtra in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 587 of 2023 has observed
that every High Court and every Court in the country has a huge
pendency, the constitutional Court should avoid temptation of fixing a
time bound schedule for disposal of any case before any Court unless the
situation is extra ordinary.
6. Hon’ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs.
                                                               NA529 No. 4236 of 2026
                                    2

State of U.P. and others, (2024) 6 SCC 267 has observed in paragraph
42, which is reproduced as under:-
“Constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of
cases pending in any Court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases
pending in every Court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the
grassroots level is better known to the judges of the concerned Courts. Therefore,
the issue of giving out-of- turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the
concerned Courts. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be
passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations.”
7. Thus, law as far as issuance of a direction for time bound/expeditious
disposal has already been well settled that only when an exceptional
circumstance is made out, a direction for time-bound/ expeditious
disposal of such a case can be issued, not otherwise.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to make out any
exceptional circumstances to issue direction for time-bound/expeditious
disposal of case, at this stage. Accordingly, relief sought by way of
present application is hereby refused.
9. Considering the nature of prayer made by counsel for the applicant, the
interest of justice would be served, in the event, the applicant applies
before the court concerned for expeditious disposal of the above
mentioned case. Therefore, applicant is given a liberty to move an
appropriate application before trial Court concerned for bringing out all
such fact, which are necessary for expeditious disposal of his case within
two weeks from today, and in case such an application is moved, the trial
Court shall decide the same within six weeks from the date of filing of
such application. If trial Court comes to conclusion that the case for
expeditious disposal is made out then in that eventuality it shall decide the
same as expeditiously as possible within a reasonable period.
10. However, looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case, it is expected from the learned trial Court to conduct the
pending proceedings before it strictly in accordance with Section 309
Cr.P.C./ Section 346 BNSS, as well as in the light of various binding
directions issued by Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time regarding
compliance of aforesaid section. This Court would also like to draw the
attention of learned trial Court qua Explanation 2, which is reproduced
herein-below:
“Explanation 2. – The terms on which an adjournment or postponement
                                                                                           NA529 No. 4236 of 2026
                                                                   3

                                    may be granted include, in appropriate cases, the payment of costs by the
                                    prosecution or the accused.”
                                    11. A perusal of certified copy of the order-sheet reveals that for the last
                                    several dates, cross examination in part is being recorded by concerned
                                    Court of the applicant/ informant and till date his cross examination has
                                    yet not been concluded. This Court would like to draw attention of the
                                    Court concerned towards proviso 2 of Sub Section 2 of Section 309
                                    Cr.P.C. which provides that when witnesses are in attendance, no
                                    adjournment or postponement shall be granted without examining them,
                                    except for special reasons to be recorded. However, no special reason has
                                    been recorded by Court concerned, therefore, it is expected that the Court
                                    concerned shall ensure compliance of Section 309 Cr.P.C. in future
                                    proceedings.
                                    12. The present application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid
                                    observation.


                                                                                       (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.)
                                    September 11, 2026
                                    Dhirendra/




Digitally signed by :-
DHIRENDRA KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad