ABDUL SAMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHAGWAN Din, J. Heard Sri P. C. Srivaslava, the learned counsel appearing for the revisionists and the learned A. G. A.

(2.) THE revisionists are beine, tried in Sessions Trial No. 460 of 1989, on the charge of murder punishable under Sec tion 302, I. P. C. by the XII-Addl. Sessions Judge, Moradabad. In the course of trial as many as three witnesses have already been examined and the evidence of the complainant, Mohd. Salim was to be recorded. A date was fixed for the evidence of the complainant. THE revisionist, Abdul Samad sought adjournment on the ground that he wanted to change counsel and engage Sri Moti Lal Jain. THE Court al lowed time and fixed 2-8-99. On that date the revisionist against applied for adjourn ment on the ground that the counsel, Sri M. L. Jain has not come to the Court. THE Court was lenient enough to grant another adjournment fixing 16-8-99 for evidence of complainant as P. W. 4. THE case was ad journed again for the reason that another counsel Sri Sudhir Gupta was busy in another Court ultimately 2-9-99 was fixed for evidence of P. W. 4. On that date the revisionist again moved the Court for ad journment on the ground that the brother of the counsel, Sri M. L. Jain had expired and he is not in a position to come to the Court. THE trial Court rejected the ap plication for adjournmeni on the grounds; firstly, that the brother of Sri M. L. Jain expired on 17-8-99 and by the date i. e. 2-9-99 all the ritual ceremonies observed after death rould be performed and there would be no reason for Sri M. L. Jain not to come to the Court and cross-examine the witness, secondly, that it is oldest case of 1989 on the file of the Sessions Judge and his endeavourance is to conclude the trial within the reasonable time.

(3.) FROM the above chronological events the complainant's conduct also appears to be one of the factors in the delay of the conclusion of the trial. Any how, when the trial has commenced it is obligatory on the accused to cooperate the Court in conclusion of the trial and not to seek unnecessary adjournments on one or the other pretexts. If such practice is permitted in the name of justice no trial come to end. At the same time, it may also be considered by the trial Court that the interest of the accused is not killed for want of cross-examination of a witness by the counsel on the reasonable and sufficient ground.