JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Heard. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the order dated 1.3.1996 passed by the S.D.J.M., Patnagarh in G.R. Case No. 172 of 1994. Petitioner is an accused in that case. 3. It reveals from the impugned order that at the time of trial of the G.R. Case No. 172 of 1994 on 1.3.1996 two official witnesses, namely, A.S.I. of Police of Lathore Outpost and Abhimanyu Nag, a police constable and one more witness named Antaryami Pradhan attended the Court to give their evidence as per the summons issued by the Court. A petition for adjournment was filed by the accused for long adjournment of the case on the ground that he had filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 2306 of 1994 to quash the proceeding of the G.R. Case and that he had further filed Original Criminal Misc. Case No. 148 of 1995 against the Superintendent of Police and in that connection all his relevant papers relating to the case were with the learned Advocate appearing in the High Court. Learned S.D.J.M. rejected the petition for time and directed to take up the trial and permitted the defense counsel to peruse the case record before cross-examining the witnesses and some time was allowed in that respect. Thereafter, when the case was again taken up for trial Petitioner filed another petition stating that he would challenge the aforesaid order in provisional Court and, therefore, the case should be adjourned. Learned S.D.J.M. rejected that petition too on the ground that Petitioner may move the provisional Court, but in the absence of any stay order passed by the superior Courts and in the absence of any direction given by the superior Courts not to proceed with the trial of the case he should not stay his hands when witnesses were in attendance. Accordingly, he recorded the evidence of the A.S.I. of Police and the Police Constable. That order has been challenged in the present application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the S.D.J.M. acted illegally by not allowing sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner to defend his case. Accordingly, he recorded the evidence of the A.S.I. of Police and the Police Constable. That order has been challenged in the present application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the S.D.J.M. acted illegally by not allowing sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner to defend his case. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argues that in the absence of any specific provision for grant of stay in such a situation, learned S.D.J.M. should have utilized and invoked his ancillary power to stay the further proceeding sue mote and in support of that he places reliance on the ratio in the case of Dr. P.P. Wilson v. K. Sundarama and Anr. 72 (1991) CLT 359 and Smt. Arunakar v. Dr. Sarat Das alias Machhi (1992) 5 OCR 630. In the case of Wilson (supra) it was held by this Court that though there is No. specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for the Magistrate to stay operation of an ex parte order of maintenance granted u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure and though the subordinate Criminal Courts cannot exercise any inherent powers yet when the husband's application u/s 126 (2), Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to set aside the ex parte maintenance order is subjudice, in appropriate case Magistrate may in exercise of the ancillary power can stay operation of the ex parte maintenance order (until disposal of the application u/s 126 (2), Code of Criminal Procedure). Taking the facts and circumstance into consideration, even this Court did not allow the stay petition. In the case of Arunakar (supra) a Division Bench of this Court held that, though there is No. specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for restoration of a proceeding u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure dismissed for default, and though the Judge, Family Court has No. authority to exercise inherent power yet ancillary or implied power is there to be exercised by such Court for restoration. Ratio in the above cited decisions are thus not found applicable so far as the facts and circumstances involved in this case. 4. Section 309, Code of Criminal Procedure provides for power of Court to postpone or adjourn criminal proceedings and reads as hereunder: 309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings. Ratio in the above cited decisions are thus not found applicable so far as the facts and circumstances involved in this case. 4. Section 309, Code of Criminal Procedure provides for power of Court to postpone or adjourn criminal proceedings and reads as hereunder: 309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings. - (1) 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. 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 be and 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. 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. From the above quoted provision the mandate of law is clear that a criminal trial should be held expeditiously and by restoring to day to day trial unless adjournment is necessary for good and sufficient reason and such reason should be indicated in the order passed for adjournment. From the above quoted provision the mandate of law is clear that a criminal trial should be held expeditiously and by restoring to day to day trial unless adjournment is necessary for good and sufficient reason and such reason should be indicated in the order passed for adjournment. Another aspect is clear from the above quoted provision of law that grant of adjournment is entirely a discretionary matter and No. party can claim for adjournment as a matter of right. However, such discretion vested with a Court is to be exercised judiciously and should not be dealt with whimsically or arbitrarily either for granting or refusing adjournment. 5. As it appears that the Petitioner was not a willing party to proceed with the trial and he made attempt to seek adjournment after the witnesses attended the Court and it is apparent from the ground advanced by the Petitioner for adjournment mentioning about the Criminal Misc. Case No. 2306 of 1994 and Original Criminal Misc. Case No. 148 of 1995. It appears that Criminal Misc. Case No. 2306 of 1994 filed u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the proceeding was dismissed on 30.11.1994 but a direction was issued to the Superintendent of Police, Bolangire to command such officer as he would deem fit to investigate the aforesaid case. Therefore, by 1.3.1996 that Criminal Misc. Case was No. more pending and it was the responsibility of the Petitioner to collect his brief. So far as Original Crl. Misc. Case N 0.148 of 1994 is concerned, it is an application u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 wherein allegation has been made that the Superintendent of Police, Bolangir did not carry out the aforesaid direction of the Court in accordance with the order passed in Criminal Revision No. 2306 of 1994. That proceeding had nothing to do with the trial of the case. In somewhat similar circumstance in the case of P. Jayappan Vs. That proceeding had nothing to do with the trial of the case. In somewhat similar circumstance in the case of P. Jayappan Vs. S.K. Perumal, First Income Tax Officer, Tuticorin, the Apex Court held that: It may be that in an appropriate case the Criminal Court may adjourn or Postpone the hearing of a criminal case in exercise of its discretionary power u/s 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the disposal of any proceeding under the Act which has a bearing on the proceedings before it is imminent so that it may take also into consideration the order to be passed therein. Even here the discretion should be exercised judicially and in such a way as not to frustrate the object of the criminal proceedings. There is No. rigid rule which makes it necessary for a Criminal Court to adjourn or postpone the hearing of a case before it indefinitely or for an unduly long period only because some proceeding which may have some bearing on it is pending elsewhere. 6. It thus appears that Crl. Misc. Case No. 2306 of 1994 had been disposed of about 15 months before the date of trial on 1.3.1996 and the contempt proceeding against the Superintendent of Police was of No. relevancy so far as the trial is concerned. Besides that, Petitioner had not obtained an order of stay from this Court. Under such circumstances, learned S.D.J.M. was justified in not exercising the discretion in favor of the Petitioner. In that view of the matter, it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order by invoking the inherent power. Accordingly, petition u/s 482. Code of Criminal Procedure is rejected and the Criminal Misc. Case is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed