LT. ·coL. s. J; CHAUDHARY v. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)

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,

. 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 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. • • ... •.

We think'it is an entirely.wh0leso111e practice for the trial to go ( ...... .

\ on :from day-io-dav .. 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 '