Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39748 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5630 of 2025 Applicant :- Gurvinder Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. Pooja Singh,Surya Prakash Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Dr. Pooja Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohd. Asif Khan, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the records. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the opposite party no. 1 is dispensed with. 3. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 258 B.N.S.S., the applicant has challenged validity of an order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC, Pratapgarh in Sessions Trial No. 600/2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 6/2021, under Sections 506, 504, 452, 323, 509, 376, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D IPC & Section 67 IT Act, Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh, to the extent that while granting permission to the applicant to travel abroad, the permission has been restricted to be operative only after closure of cross-examination of the victim. 4. A copy of the order sheet of trial court annexed with the application shows that the next date fixed in the trial for cross-examination of PW-1 is 14.07.2025. 5. Section 309 Cr.P.C. provides as follows:— “ 309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.— (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 376-A, Section 376-AB, Section 376- B, Section 376-C, Section 376-D, Section 376-DA or Section 376-DB of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), 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— (a) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party; (b) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment; (c) 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 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. Explanation 1.—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. Explanation 2.—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. (Emphasis added) 6. In Raj Deo Sharma (II) v. State of Bihar: (1999) 7 SCC 604, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that “We cannot permit the trial Court to flout the said mandate of Parliament unless the Court has very cogent and strong reasons. No Court has permission to adjourn examination of witnesses who are in attendance beyond the next working day” (emphasis added). 7. In State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh: (2001) 4 SCC 667, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the legislative mandate contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. in the following words:— “11. The first sub-section mandates on the trial Courts that the proceedings shall be held expeditiously but the words “as expeditiously as possible” have provided some play at the joints and it is through such play that delay often creeps in the trials. Even so, the next limb of the sub-section sounded for a more vigorous stance to be adopted by the Court at a further advanced stage of the trial. That stage is when examination of the witnesses begins. The legislature which diluted the vigour of the mandate contained in the initial limb of the sub-section by using the words “as expeditiously as possible” has chosen to make the requirement for the next stage (when examination of the witnesses has started) to be quite stern. Once the case reaches that stage the statutory command is that such examination “shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined”. The solitary exception to the said stringent rule is, if the Court finds that adjournment “beyond the following day to be necessary” the same can be granted for which a condition is imposed on the Court that reasons for the same should be recorded. Even this dilution has been taken away when witnesses are in attendance before the Court. In such situation the Court is not given any power to adjourn the case except in the extreme contingency for which the second proviso to sub-section (2) has imposed another condition, “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”. (emphasis in original) 12. Thus, the legal position is that once examination of witnesses started, the Court has to continue the trial from day to day until all witnesses in attendance have been examined (except those whom the party has given up). The Court has to record reasons for deviating from the said course. Even that is forbidden when witnesses are present in Court, as the requirement then is that the Court has to examine them. Only if there are “special reasons”, which reasons should find a place in the order for adjournment, that alone can confer jurisdiction on the Court to adjourn the case without examination of witnesses who are present in Court. 13. Now, we are distressed to note that it is almost a common practice and regular occurrence that trial Courts flout the said command with impunity. Even when witnesses are present, cases are adjourned on far less serious reasons or even on flippant grounds. Adjournments are granted even in such situations on the mere asking for it. Quite often such adjournments are granted to suit the convenience of the advocate concerned. We make it clear that the legislature has frowned at granting adjournments on that ground. At any rate inconvenience of an advocate is not a “special reason” for bypassing the mandate of Section 309 of the Code.” 8. This High Court issued a Circular Letter No. 20/Admin. ‘G-II’ Dated 14.05.2015, which provides as follows:— In continuation of marginally quoted Court’s earlier Circular Letters and in the light of Hon’ble Apex Court’s orders passed in the cases of Akil alias Javed VS. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in 2012 (11) SCALE 709, in paras 27 to 36: State of UP Vs. Shambhu Nath Singh and others, reported in 2001 (4) SCC 667; Raj Deo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar, 1999 Cr.L.J. 4541 and Lt. Col. SJ. Chaudhari Vs. State (Delhi) Administration, (1984) 1 SCC 722, I am directed to state that the High Court is noticing disturbing trend in criminal trials, where Sessions cases are being adjourned, in some cases to suit convenience of counsels or because the prosecution or the defence is not fully ready and considers it necessary to draw the attention of all the Sessions Judges and Additional Sessions Judges once again to the provision of Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and directs 73 them to adhere strictly to these provisions and instructions given below while granting adjournment in Sessions Cases: 1. C.L. No. 152/VIII-b13, 28.10.1974 2. C.L. No. 58-50/Admn „G‟, 23.11.1992 3. C.L. No. 54/VIIb-18, 06.12.2000 4. C.L. No. 8/VIIb-18, 07.02.2000 5. C.L. No. C-72/1990, 26.07.1990 (1) Trial Judges are reminded of the need to comply with Section 309 of the Code in letter and spirit. (2) In every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the same 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: (Section 309 (1) Cr.P.C.] * * *” 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid statutory mandate contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C., the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases and the notification issued by this Court, this Petition is disposed of by issuing a direction that cross-examination of PW1 shall be conducted on day-to-day basis without granting unnecessary adjournments and the trial court shall make every endeavour to conclude the same within a period of one week, subject to cooperation of the applicant and his counsel. Upon completion of cross-examination, the applicant will be free to travel abroad in terms of the impugned order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the trial court. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 Pradeep/- Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench