Chapter XXIV

Section 309 CrPC: Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings

New Law Update (2024)

Section 355 BNSS

TRIAL COURT

Any Criminal Court conducting inquiry or trial, including Magistrate Courts, Sessions Courts

Punishment​

Procedural – Warrant / Summons Process

Cognizable?

Bailable?

Compoundable?

Bare Act Text

(1) In every inquiry or trial, the proceedings shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded: Provided that when the inquiry or trial relates to an offence under section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code, the inquiry or trial shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the charge sheet.

(2) If the Court, after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody:
Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time:
Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed on him:
Provided also that-
(i) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party;
(ii) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment;
(iii) where 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 dispensing with the examination-in-chief or cross-examination of the witness, as the case may be.

(3) If sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed an offence, and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for a remand.

(4) The terms on which an adjournment or postponement may be granted include, in appropriate cases, the payment of costs by the prosecution or the accused.

Important Sub-Sections Explained

Section 309(1)

This sub-section mandates that criminal inquiries and trials proceed on a day-to-day basis until all witnesses are examined, unless an adjournment is absolutely necessary and recorded. It also sets a strict two-month deadline for completing trials related to severe sexual offences from the charge sheet date, underscoring the commitment to speedy justice.

Section 309(2)

This sub-section grants the Court the power to postpone or adjourn proceedings and remand the accused, but strictly for recorded reasons and on specified terms. It also imposes crucial restrictions on granting adjournments, prohibiting them if witnesses are present (unless for special reasons), for mere plea against sentence, or solely due to a lawyer’s engagement elsewhere, thereby curbing unnecessary delays.

Landmark Judgements

Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992):

This landmark Supreme Court judgment established that speedy trial is an integral part of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It laid down various propositions and guidelines regarding the right to a speedy trial, emphasizing that prolonged delay can vitiate the proceedings and even warrant their quashing.

Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar (1998):

The Supreme Court, in this case, reiterated the importance of speedy trial and issued further directions to ensure expeditious disposal of criminal cases. It provided specific guidelines regarding the maximum period for conclusion of trials and the consequences of non-compliance, aiming to prevent arbitrary and unjust delays in judicial proceedings, aligning with the mandate of Section 309 CrPC.

Draft Format / Application

Leave a Comment

Scroll to Top