Supreme Court of India
LT. COL. S. J. CHAUDHARYversusSTATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)
- Citation
- 1984 INSC 14
- Decided
- 17 January 1984
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- O CHINNAPPA REDDY
Holding
A criminal trial in a Sessions Court must proceed day‑to‑day once commenced, and an advocate who has accepted a brief is obligated to attend daily; therefore, the petition for modification was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking modification of a Sessions Court order that the trial proceed on a day‑to‑day basis, arguing that his counsel were not prepared to appear continuously as the trial was expected to be lengthy. The Court examined the duty of counsel in criminal proceedings and the procedural requirements of a Sessions Judge before commencing trial, emphasizing that the judge must ensure all necessary evidence is available. It held that, barring a compelling reason, a trial must continue without interruption once it has started, to serve the interests of both prosecution and defence. The Court further stressed that an advocate who accepts a brief is obligated to attend the trial daily, and failure to do so constitutes a breach of professional duty. Consequently, the petition for modification was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a Sessions Court can modify a day‑to‑day trial schedule on the ground that the defence counsel are unable to attend continuously.
- What is the extent of an advocate's duty to attend a criminal trial once a brief is accepted?
- Under what circumstances may a Sessions Judge adjourn a trial after it has commenced?
Subjects
Criminal ProcedureAdjournmentAdvocate's dutySessions CourtDay‑to‑day trialProcedural law
Judgment
•
A . 438
LT. ·coL. s. J; CHAUDHARY
..
·,.
v.
'
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)
B
January 17, 1984
[9 CmNNAPPA REDDY, E.S. VENKATARAMIA.H AND R. B. MISRA, Jlj
,l
Criminal Procedure-Trial by.sessions coutt to p~oceedfron1 di:ly to dliy. Triill- ·
when coulcf be adjot~rned. · · . · . "'..
c
~racti~e-Duty oi Advocate.
The petitioner sought modification of the Court's order that the tri3.l -should
proCeed from daY to day· on the ground .that his advoCates were··nof prepared to
app~ar in the. case fr6m -day to day as the trial Was likely to be. prolonged.
D. · .--D.ismissing the. p~tition,
HELD : · It will b~ in . the l.Oterest of both the prosecution and the defence·
. th.at the trial proceeds fro1n day-_tO-day. Before ·commencing a trial, a Sessions
Jud&e rn.ust ·satisfy· him5~1f that all nxessary ·evidence iS available: If it is not, l1e .
.may _postp::>ne the case, but only _on the stron'g:esi Possible grourid and for ~e shortest
p_ossible period. Once· thi: tfial commences;· .he should, except for a very .piessing
E · , reason which make:~ an· adjoUrnment inevitable, .Pfoceed ·de die_ in .diem un.til the '7--
trial is concluded: · [439 C·DJ ·
. It _is th~ duty Of every advocaie who _acccPts. the· brief in a criminal case to --'-
• ·· attend. the tria! ·from day-to-day.. -Having accePted the briet he will be committing -7 . .
~ b~each- of· his pr~fessional duty, ·if he.so fails to attend. · r439 B-F']
F . CRIMil'i~L APPELLATE JuR1SmcrmN : Criminal Misc. Petition No.· 284
of 1984 in Sp,cia:l Leave Petn. (Cr!.) No: 3000 of 1983.
· . K. L. Sharma, K. K. Mohan and Mrs.' Geeta~iali Mohari for
•
the Petitioner,·
G K.G. Bhagat, Additiooal Solicitor General, R.D. Agarwaz and
. R.N. Poddar for the· Respondent. ; .
• The Order of the Court_ was delivered by :
H CiUNNAPPA REODY, 1. By an order dated December l!, 1983,
this.court while dismissing a petition fo~ speCial leave to appeal filed:
s. J. CHAUtn~AR)' v. STATE (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 439
..
against.an order of the Del.hi High Cou~t refusing to grant bail to the A.
p;,titioner until after examination of Rani Chaudhaj as a witness,
gwe a direction that on the commencement of the ttial, it should
pro'if'ed from <:lay-to-day. Alleging t)lat his two Advocates are not
prepared .to appoar in the case from day-to-day as the trio! is Hkelv
to be prolonged. tho petitit'~1er has. fikd the present application for
modification•or the earlier 6rder of this cout t by the deletion of• the B
•
.. ·,.A
'directio·n tint. the trial should proceed from day-to-da:y.
• •
... •.
( on :fromWe day-io-dav
think'it is an entirely.wh0leso111e practice for the trial to go
......
. .. It is .most expedient that the tr;al before the
court of a Session shoukl proceed. and be dealt. with continuo~sly
\
from its incepcion to its finish: Not only ,;111 it rcsuJi.in expedition,
it will also result in the elimination of.mailOeuvre. and mischief, It
will be in the interest of both the pros,ecution an.d the defence that
~ • the trial proceeds from dav-to-dav. It' is necessary to realise that
pi 0
·Sessions cases must not. bo tried. ecemeul. Before commendng a
· trial, a Sessions Judge. must satisfy himself that all necessary evidence.
D i
is available. ·u it is noi, he.·may·postpone ·the case, but only on the
strongest possible ground and for the shortest possibl!' perfod. Once
the trial commences, lle ·should, except. fof a verv press'lng reason
"'hich makes an adjourrAllent ·hievitable, proceed de die in diem . until
the trial .is concluded, ·
. . . . . . . . .
. - . We are µ~able to.appreciate the difficulty said to be experienced
·. E -.
··. "r 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 Advccate,
who accepts the brief in a criminal case to a.ttend the trial frcmday-tc-
day. We cannot over-stress the duty· of ihe Advocate to attend to
-~ the trial froth day-to.-day. ·Having accepted the brief, he will be ·F
committing a breach of his profossional duty; if.he so fails to attend .
. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is, therefore, dismissed. . ·
•
H.S.K. Petition dismissec(.
' G
'
•
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Criminal Procedure"Sign in to search