1990 P Cr (PLP)

S. 344

Words `for such time as it considers reasonable' in 5.344, Cr.P.C. are very significant

Sessions Court has no jurisdiction to keep cases with it without passing orders of adjournment or to adjourn cases sine die, or for a very long period

Sessions Court' can postpone trial for good reasons and upto a reasonable time and adjournment can be made from time to time and not at a stretch

If accused is in custody he has to be remanded to judicial lock-up and adjournment should necessarily be for a reasonable time and not for an indefinite period

There may be some justification for postponing a case sine die where none of the accused is in custody, but where one or more accused are in custody, it is necessary that they should be sent for from judicial lock-up after reasonable intervals when adjournment of case is to be ordered. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Ss. 497 & 344

Penal Code (XLV of 1660), S.302/201/148/149

Bail-- Accused for the last nine months was not even once produced before Sessions 'Judge nor Sessions Judge had passed any order of adjournment

Nine months' time could not be said to be reasonable

Custody of accused, held, was improper who was admitted to bail in circumstances. Kh. Sultan Ahmad for Petitioner A.R. Niazi for the State. Date of hearing: 6th December 1977. The only point argued before me for enlarging the petitioner on bail in case of F.I.R. 194 under sections 148, 302/201, 149, P.P.C. is that the detention of the petitioner is illegal for non-compliance of the provisions of section 344 of Criminal Procedure Code. The challan was put up before the Ilaqa Magistrate on 15-2-1977. The learned Magistrate gave two adjournments for the production of the accused from the District Jail and on 17-3-1977 he sent up the case to the learned Sessions Judge for trial passing an order under subsection (3) of section 190, Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge has not passed any order until now, nor ever the petitioner was produced before him. The challans in murder cases are not put up direct to the learned Sessions Judge, but are put up before the learned Ilaqa Magistrates. Previously the Committing Magistrates could send up cases to the learned Sessions Judges after recording the evidence giving the findings that prima facie case had been proved. Now only this change had been brought about that 111aq Magistrate shall not be required to record any evidence. The learned Sessions Judges, however, take cognizance of only those cases which are sent to them by the Magistrates. So before the learned Magistrates send the cases to the learned Sessions Judges under subsection (3) of section 190 of the Cr.P.C. they are bound by the provisions of section 344 and thereafter the learned Sessions Judges have to comply with the provisions of the said section. Provisions of section 344, Cr.P.C. for the learned Sessions Judges are also the same and the only difference is that the period of adjournment is not restricted to 15 days. The learned Sessions Judges after giving reasons for adjournment have to record an order of adjournment for a reasonable time. Following directions given in section 344, Cr.P.C. are very important: "The Court may, if it thinks fit, by order in writing stating the reasons therefor, from time to time, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it deems fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody." The words `for such time as it considers reasonable' are very significant. It is beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judges to keep the case with them without passing orders of adjournment or to adjourn the cases sine die or for a very long period. They can postpone the trial for good reasons and upto a reasonable time. Again adjournment can be made from time to time and not at a stretch. It is also necessary to remand the accused to the judicial lock-up if in custody. In cases where the accused is in custody, it is all the more necessary that the adjournment should be for a reasonable time, and not an indefinite period. There may be some justification for postponing a case sine die where none of the accused is in custody. But where one or more accused are in the custody, it is necessary that they should be sent for from judicial lock-up after reasonable intervals when the adjournment of the case is to be ordered. In the present case right from March uptil now not even once the accused was produced before the learned Sessions Judge, nor he passed any order of adjournment. Nine months' time cannot be said to be reasonable. Since the accused was never produced before the learned Sessions Judge within the period of nine months, his custody is improper, and thus he is admitted to bail in the sum of rupees twenty thousand (Rs.20,000) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C., Leiah/Illaqa Magistrate. N.H.Q./M-1818/L Bail granted.