Trial Judges Adjourning Cases At Counsel's Request To Earn Good Name In Bar, Not Following Supreme Court Guidelines: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently observed that the trial courts were not following the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in 2014-2016 dealing with witness examination. The court remarked that some trial judges were not following the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court but were adjourning cases at the request of the counsels appearing for the accused to earn a good name at the bar. “From the petitions filed under 482 Cr.P.C., it can be observed that the trial Judges are not using the said rulings for rendering justice. To earn a good name from the members of the Bar, they are adjourning the cases at the request of the learned counsel appearing for the accused,” the court remarked. Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup was dealing with a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to set aside an order of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai The Sessions judge had dismissed a petition filed by the petitioners to recall some witnesses. While dismissing the petitions, the Sessions Judge had noted that the application to recall was devoid of merits but was with a malafide intention by the petitioners (accused) to steer to case to the side of the accused. The High Court also criticized the counsel who appeared for the accused. The court noted that as a member of the bar, the lawyer had a duty towards the court in rendering justice and assisting the court. The court said that be seeking adjournments to recall the witness, the lawyer had ignored their responsibility and helped the accused wriggle out of the case. “Also, the learned counsel, who appeared for the accused, as a member of the Bar, has a duty towards the Court in rendering justice in assisting the Court as a Court Officer. They ignore their responsibility and professional ethics and etiquette and they are ready to help the accused to wriggle out of the case by seeking adjournments to recall the witnesses, which amounts to harass the victims of the crime, who are invariably the witnesses before the trial Courts,” the court said. The court thus noted that the petitioner's prayer could not be allowed in view of the guidelines and rules laid down by the Supreme Court which had deprecated the practice of recalling witnesses. Thus, upholding the order of the trial court, the petition was dismissed. Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.R.Karunanithi Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.M.Veeranthiran Government Advocate Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 21 Case Title: Selvam @ Selvakumar and others v The Inspector of Police Case No: CRL.O.P (MD) No.23412 of 2023Click here to read/download the judgment

Trial Judges Adjourning Cases At Counsel's Request To Earn Good Name In Bar, Not Following Supreme Court Guidelines: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags