Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali 2025 INSC 1155 - S.309 CrPC - Day To Day Trial

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 309 [Section 346 BNSS] - Disapproves 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 - 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). (Para 21) Courts should revert to practice of conducting trials on a day to day basis -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- Chief Justices of the High Courts may direct their administrative side to issue a circular to the respective district judiciaries in this regard. ( Para 35- 37)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 309 [Section 346 BNSS] - Model Circular guidelines -[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 noncooperation 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.) (Para 47)

Constitution of India - Article 21 - 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. (Para 28)

Criminal Trial- 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. (Para 8) 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.(Para 10)

‘Day-to-Day Trial Practice Must Be Revived In Sensitive Cases’ : Supreme Court Gives Guidelines To Courts On Speedy Trial

The judgment included a set of guidelines which the High Court Chief Justices can issue to the trial judges for expeditious trial.

Live LawLIVELAW NEWS NETWORK