The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reinforced the constitutional imperative of expeditious justice by directing day-to-day trial proceedings in a sensitive criminal case involving child abduction and conspiracy. This order underscores the judiciary’s growing intolerance for procedural delays that undermine the rights of victims and witnesses, while reiterating the statutory duty under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to ensure trials proceed without unnecessary adjournments.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Devisingh, faces charges under Section 363/34, 367/34, 368/34, 120-B of the IPC, and Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, arising from Crime No.389/2015 registered at P.S. Kotwali, Alirajpur. The case involves allegations of abduction and unlawful confinement of a minor, making it sensitive under the JJ Act.
Procedural History
- 2015: Crime registered at P.S. Kotwali, Alirajpur
- 2019: Charges framed by Second Additional Sessions Judge
- 2019: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 CrPC challenging framing of charges
- 2026: 55 of 65 prosecution witnesses examined; 6 remain unexamined; matter pending since 2015
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought withdrawal of the criminal revision, acknowledging the trial’s ongoing nature and the absence of grounds to challenge the framing of charges.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates continuous trial, permits prolonged adjournments in sensitive cases involving children, and whether courts have the authority to enforce day-to-day trial schedules even in the absence of formal applications from parties.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel did not contest the framing of charges but sought withdrawal of the revision petition, implicitly acknowledging that the trial had progressed substantially and that no legal error had occurred in the framing stage. No substantive challenge was raised to the trial’s pace.
For the Respondent/State
The State did not oppose withdrawal of the revision. However, the Court took the opportunity to address systemic delays, invoking the Supreme Court’s guidance in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman@ Ara @Mir Usman Ali to enforce procedural discipline.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined Section 309 CrPC, which mandates that every inquiry or trial shall be conducted expeditiously and, once commenced, shall continue from day to day until all witnesses are examined, except for special reasons recorded in writing. The Court emphasized that this provision is not merely directory but a constitutional imperative under Article 21, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial.
"The proceedings in every inquiry or trial shall be held expeditiously... 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 distinguished routine advocate inconvenience from genuine emergencies, holding that delays caused by counsel’s unavailability cannot override the rights of victims and witnesses. It further noted that the trial had languished for over a decade, with more than half the witnesses examined but no clear timeline for conclusion.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s seven-point framework in CBI v. Mir Usman to establish binding norms for trial courts. It held that the trial court’s failure to adopt a structured schedule violated the spirit of Section 309 CrPC and the principles laid down in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar and Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab.
The Verdict
The revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court held that Section 309 CrPC imposes a non-negotiable duty on trial courts to conduct day-to-day trials in sensitive cases and directed the completion of the trial within six months. The Court also mandated proactive case scheduling and witness management by the prosecution.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Day-to-Day Trial Is Not Discretionary
- Practitioners must now treat Section 309 CrPC as a mandatory procedural obligation, not a suggestion
- Courts must frame trial schedules at the outset, with input from both sides, and enforce them strictly
- Adjournments for advocate convenience are no longer permissible unless supported by verifiable, exceptional circumstances
Witness Management Is the State’s Duty
- Public Prosecutors must be entrusted with serving witness summons as per court-fixed schedules
- In-charge police officers are now legally obligated to ensure witness availability on trial dates
- Failure to comply may attract cost imposition or contempt proceedings under Section 175 IPC
Six-Month Timeline Sets New Benchmark
- In cases involving children, sexual offences, or public interest, a six-month trial window is now the expected norm
- Delays beyond this period without recorded special reasons will invite appellate intervention
- Defence counsel must plan for continuous availability; failure may result in appointment of amicus curiae
