Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030003942026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./16/2026 Sh. Sandeep Agarwal S/o Late Sh. S.K. Agarwal R/o Flat No. 3-C, Alkananda Apartment Tarun Nagar, Byelane No. 1 G.S. Road, Guwahati - 781005 Kamrup, Assam Proprietor/Director, Jai Plastech Pvt. Ltd., Lower Baliian, Umtru Power House Road Bymihat - 793101 Ri-Bhoi District, Megalaya VERSUS State of Mizoram R/b the Public Prosecutor Gauhati High Court, Aizawl Bench Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Jatin Sehgal Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 09.06.2026 Heard Mr. Jatin Sehgal, learned counsel for the petitioner who submits Page No.# 2/6 that he is the counsel for accused Nos. A-3,A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, A- 11, A-16 & A-17. He submits that S.R (PCA) No. 4 of 2019, pending before the Special Court, PC Act, Aizawl, is in the hearing stage. He submits that he has made arguments for three days. However, due to his prior plan to visit Japan between 10.06.2026 to 19.06.2026, he had asked for hearing to be adjourned till 22.06.2026, to complete his arguments. 2. The learned counsel submits that the accused petitioners that he represents, have never been given a copy of the written arguments submitted by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court. However, it was only by way of order dated 08.06.2026 passed by the Trial Court that he is going to be furnished copy of the written arguments of the prosecution today i.e. 09.06.2026. He submits that in terms of Section 314 (2) Cr.PC, the accused has a right to make a reply to the written arguments submitted by the prosecution. However, as the written arguments is to be submitted by the prosecution only today, he needs some time to go through the same. 3. The learned counsel for the accused petitioners also submits that he undertakes to be in Aizawl on 21.06.2026, so that he is able to make his arguments before the learned Trial Court on 22.06.2026. If he is unable to appear on 22.06.2026 before the learned Trial Court, the accused petitioners will forgo their claims to make any arguments. Page No.# 3/6 4. Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, on the other hand submits that the prosecution evidence had been closed in the year 2024 and examination of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.PC had also been completed in the year 2024. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits the prosecution had submitted their written arguments on 25.08.2025 and the stage of final arguments had started from October, 2025. She submits that while the matter has been fixed for the present week for final disposal of the entire case, the petitioners had prayed for adjournment, only with the view to delay the case. There has also been change of previous counsels by the petitioners, only with a view to delay the matter, which has been pending a long time before the Trial Court. She accordingly, submits that the application for adjournment should be rejected. 5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 6. One of the important aspects of trial is that there should be speedy trial in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution. The question as to whether the petitioners had been given the written arguments of the prosecution had not been addressed by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, as the matter has been listed in this Court for the first time. If this Court is to give time to obtain particulars on the issue, precious time would be wasted, which this Court is not inclined to do, as that would delay the efforts undertaken by the learned Trial Page No.# 4/6 Court to dispose of the case expeditiously. There have been decisions by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to various factors contributing to the delay in the disposal of cases and the Supreme Court, in the case of The Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 969/2025 has given directions to High Courts, to issue circulars to district judiciaries, stating that proceedings in every inquiry or trial should be held expeditiously and the courts should not grant adjournment to suit the convenience of the advocate concerned, except on very exceptional grounds like bereavement in the family and similar exceptional reasons duly supported by a memo. It further held that it should be noted that the said inconvenience of an advocate is not a ‘special reason’ for the purpose of bypassing immunity of Section 309 Cr.PC. The Supreme Court further directed that in case of non-cooperation of the accused or his counsel, the Court shall satisfy itself whether the non-cooperation is in active collusion with the accused to delay the trial. If it is so satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing, it may, if the accused is on bail, put the accused on notice to show cause why the bail cannot be cancelled. In cases where the accused is not in collusion with the lawyer and it is the lawyer who is not cooperating with the trial, the Court may for reasons to be recorded, appoint an amicus curiae for the accused and fix a date for proceeding with the cross-examination/trial. The Court may also in Page No.# 5/6 appropriate cases impose cost on the accused commensurate with the loss suffered by the witness including the expenses to attend the Court. The import of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the above is basically to the effect that adjournment should not be given, unless there are very exceptional reasons for giving the same. 7. On considering the fact that the written arguments have been submitted by the prosecution in August, 2025 and by the petitioner some time in the month of February/March, 2026, the excuse given by the petitioner that he has not received a copy of the written arguments of the prosecution does not appear to ring true, inasmuch as, the same could have always been applied for from the Court and/or the same could have been seen at the time of inspection of the records. However, in view of the order dated 08.06.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court in S.R. (PCA) No. 4/2019, stating that if the defence counsel would like to have a copy of the written arguments of the Public Prosecutor, the Public Prosecutor is requested to furnish a copy of the written arguments in respect to A-3,A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11, A-16 & A-17 to the defence counsel on 09.06.2026, this Court is inclined to give time to the petitioner and his counsel to go through the written arguments of the Public Prosecutor. 8. Accordingly, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he would appear and complete his arguments by 22.06.2026 or Page No.# 6/6 may be by 23.06.2026, the learned Trial Court is directed to give time to the petitioner and his counsel to make their final submissions on the case on 22.06.2026 and 23.06.2026. If the arguments are not completed on 22.06.2026 or by 23.06.2026 and in the event the counsel does not appear on the said date, the learned Trial Court can always look into the steps that can be taken by the Trial Court, for completing the trial as observed above. 9. Petition is accordingly disposed off. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned Trial Court. JUDGE Comparing Assistant