Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1065 (RAJ)

Man Mohan v. State of Rajasthan

2006-04-04

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2006
Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-The petitioners have challenged the order dated 17.08.2005 whereby the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar has framed charges against the petitioners for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 450, 379, 307/149, IPC and under Sections 3/25 Arms Act. 2. The only contention raised by Mr. Rajendra S. Tawar is that the learned trial Court has framed the said charges without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. According to him, on 17.08.2005 since the Counsel for the accused was not available, a proxy Counsel had moved an application for adjourning the case. However, without adjourning the case on that date, the learned trial Court proceeded to frame the charges. 3. Mr. Arun Sharma, the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand has argued that twice opportunities were given to the Counsel to argue against the framing of charges. Yet, twice he had sought adjournments. On the last occasion the learned trial Court had clearly stated that “no further adjournments would be given.” In fact, in order to permit the Counsel to prepare the case, the learned trial Court had given a long adjournment. Thus, the learned trial Court was justified in rejecting the application for adjournment and in framing the charges despite the absence of the learned Counsel for the accused. 4. We have heard both the learned Counsels for the parties and have scanned the impugned order. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that twice opportunities were given to the Counsel for the accused to argue on the charges. Prior to the impugned order, the Court had clearly told the Counsel that no more adjournments would be given for arguing on the charges to be framed. Thus, the Counsel was well aware that the Court would not grant any further adjournment in the case. Yet, still the Counsel sought adjournment on 17.08.2005. The application for seeking adjournment merely mentions that “he (the Counsel) is out of town for some work.” Thus, no cogent reason has been given for his absence. 6. Although ordinarily the Courts should hear the Counsel for the accused before framing the charges, but the Courts are not expected to wait endlessly for the counsels to come and argue before the Court. Twice opportunities were given to the Counsel to argue the case. Twice he sought adjournments. 6. Although ordinarily the Courts should hear the Counsel for the accused before framing the charges, but the Courts are not expected to wait endlessly for the counsels to come and argue before the Court. Twice opportunities were given to the Counsel to argue the case. Twice he sought adjournments. In case opportunities are given and not utilized, the person cannot claim that proper opportunity of hearing has not been given to him. In the case of Bar Council of India vs. High Court of Kerala, 2004 (6) SCC 311 , the Honble Supreme Court had held, “The principles of natural justice, it is well settled, cannot be put into a straitjacket formula. Its application will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is also well settled that if a party after having proper notice chose not to appear, he at later stage cannot be permitted to say that he had not been given a fair opportunity of hearing”. Similar views have been held in Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Girdharilal Yadav, 2004 (6) SCC 325 as well. Hence, in the present case, the contention of the Learned Counsel that the principles of natural justice have been denied is ill founded. 7. Needless adjournments have become the bane of our judicial system. The Courts are not expected to wait endlessly for the Counsel to come and argue the case. The generosity of repeated adjournments dilutes the discipline of the Bar members, prolongs the legal proceedings, adds to the burgeoning backlogs of the case and increase the litigants frustration. Ultimately, it undermines the reputation of the judiciary and the faith of the people in it. The judiciary cannot afford the luxury of loosing the faith of the people. It is for these reasons that repeatedly, the Honble Supreme Court has deprecated the habit of granting adjournments for the mere asking. Since, two opportunities are given to the Counsel for the accused, since the Counsel was forewarned that no further adjournments would be given, the accused cannot claim that he was not heard. It was the Counsels duty to attend the Court on the specified date, or to make the necessary arrangement for attending the Court. In case he has failed to do so, the learned Court cannot be faulted for passing the impugned order. 8. Thus, there is no merit in this petition. It is, hereby dismissed.