Revive practice of day-to-day trial in sensitive cases: SC tells HCs

Expressing serious concern over discontinuation of the practice of day-to-day trial in important/sensitive cases, the Supreme Court has asked all high courts to constitute committees to deliberate on its revival and effective implementation at the district level.

“One of the significant factors contributing to delays in the justice system is the discretionary practice of non-continuous 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,” a Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan said while dealing with the CBI’s plea seeking cancellation of bail of Mir Usman Ali – a rape accused from West Bengal.

“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 said, issuing a series of directions.

“The practice of conducting trials on a day to day basis more particularly in important or sensitive cases as was the tradition about 30 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,” the Bench said.

The top court asked all high courts to set up a committee to discuss the issue “very seriously for the benefit of their respective district judiciaries.”

While refusing to cancel the bail, the Bench took exception to the prosecutor’s decision to examine 30 witnesses. “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? ...The Trial Judge should ask the Public Prosecutor why he wants to examine a particular witness,” it said.

The Bench asked chief justices of high courts to issue a circular to the respective district judiciaries stating that proceedings in every inquiry or trial shall be held expeditiously and that 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.

“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. 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 CrPC,” it said.

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

“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,” the SC said.