NEW DELHI: The government has suggested that higher judiciary impose fines on judges for allowing frequent and too many adjournments, a move which can potentially ensure swift punishment for those guilty of heinous crimes, early release of undertrials who may be found innocent as well as respite for those who have been embroiled in interminably long litigation over civil disputes.
The government has been holding consultations with the Supreme Court to urge the latter to ensure that the amendment made under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which capped the adjournments permissible in a case at three, are implemented. It suggested that the higher judiciary consider imposing fines on judges infringing the three adjournment ceiling.
In fact, in cases of heinous crimes like rape, the amended Section 309 of CrPC lays down a timeframe of two months for the completion of inquiry as well as trial.
Sources said the law ministry has held several rounds of consultations with the apex court, and expressed satisfaction with the response it received to the proposal for strict enforcement of Section 309 of CrPC, limiting the number of adjournments before the subordinate judiciary.
The apex court too has in a number of recent judgments frowned upon the trend among subordinate judiciary to allow frequent adjournments: something which has been identified as one of the main factors behind the huge pendency of cases. The government is hopeful that SC may take steps shortly to ensure that the guidelines under the amended Section 309 are no longer disregarded by judges.
Section 309 of CrPC provides that “every inquiry or trial shall be held as expeditiously as possible and the recording of examination of witnesses shall be continued on day-to-day basis unless the court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded”.
The government later incorporated some more guidelines relating to adjournments which specified that “no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party and even in cases where the pleader of a party is engaged in another court, shall not be a ground for adjournment”.
The other important guideline said if a “witness is present in court but a party or his pleader is not present or the party or his pleader though present in court is not ready to examine or cross-examine the witness, the court may, if it thinks fit, record the statement of the witness and pass such orders as it thinks fit”. Sources said some of these guidelines may be notified soon so that it becomes compulsory for the subordinate judiciary to enforce them.
Already, the law ministry has drawn up a list of other important amendments carried out in CrPC in the recent past but which are not being enforced by the lower judiciary.
For instance, a new Section 436A has been inserted, which provides that “if an accused has spent half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence, not being an offence for which the death punishment has been specified as one of the punishment, he shall be released by the court on his personal bond with or without sureties”.
Another amendment in Section 437 of CrPC provides that “if the accused had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more but not less than seven years, such person shall not be granted bail”.
(TNN)
