IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-29226 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 20, 2009 Ashok Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab. … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.D. Anand, J. Crl. Misc. Nos.52771 to 52773 of 2009 Allowed, as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. M-29226 of 2009 It is a case wherein the forfeiture of the personal and also surety bonds of the petitioner-accused (who is facing trial in the Court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Batala, in case F.I.R. No. 12 dated 6.2.1999, under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station, City Batala) was ordered on account of his one time absence on 25.08.2006. It is argued by the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that he is otherwise facing the trial since the year 2000 (17.07.2000, to be precise) and the petitioner cannot be accused of having delayed the trial at all. In that context, it is pointed out that no prosecution witness was present on a number of dates. Crl. Misc. No. M-29226 of 2009 Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. B.B.S. Teji, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State. The petition is disposed of with a direction that on his entering appearance, the learned Trial Court shall release the petitioner – Ashok Kumar on bail in case FIR No. 12 dated 6.2.1999, under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station, City Batala, to its satisfaction. However, the facts apparent from the file, including the quoted interim orders, present an avoidably grim scenario. The interim orders indicate that this trial was allowed to proceed at a virtual snail’s space. Without, at all, intending to sound accusatory, the only purpose of noticing these facts is to inform the Subordinate Courts in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh, that there is certain amount of sacrosanctity attached to a criminal trial which involves the liberty of an individual. After all, there are only two ways a trial would necessarily end. If the prosecution is not able to establish the charge up to the required level of proof, a verdict on point of exoneration has to follow. In that eventuality, the accused facing trial is entitled to walk a free man at the earliest. On the other hand, if a trial has to end up in a conviction, the indicted accused is entitled to ask for an expeditious trial to enable him to have recourse to the remedy 2 Crl. Misc. No. M-29226 of 2009 available to him before the Court of the higher judicial hierarchy, Either way, thus, expeditious trial is the constitutional right of an individual who is being prosecuted in a Court of law. In the present case, it is apparent from the relevant interim order that the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. came to be filed on 17.07.2000. After undergoing lot many avoidable vicissitudes, the charge came to be framed after one year thereof i.e. in the year 2001. The matter was adjourned for the recording of the prosecution evidence. Pleas on behalf of one or the other accused, for the grant of exemption from personal appearance, followed and were allowed except one. The interim orders do not even indicate the justification for the allowance of the pleas aforementioned. An interim order must be self-contained in character and notice the grounds for the grant of adjournment. It is then only that the authority higher in judicial hierarchy would be able to find out whether the Presiding Officer of the concerned Court had applied his mind to the presentation made before the Court or not. The recording of non-self contained and non transparent orders disables the appellate/revisional/supervisory Court from finding out the validity or otherwise the premise of grant of an adjournment. 3 Crl. Misc. No. M-29226 of 2009 The Subordinate Courts (at all hierarchy levels) are directed to ensure that every interim order must be self- contained and transparent in character. A perusal of the interim orders quoted in the petition itself also reveals the unexplained deferment of the testimony of a witness. The part recording of the testimony of a witness and the deferment thereof for its conclusion, is also a frequently noticed menace which threatens the very credibility of the system of dispensation of justice. In the normal course of things, there is no reason why recording of testimony of witness, once taken in hand, should not be concluded on that very day. There might well be an eventuality where a court has to grant compulsive deferment. All that this Court desires is that the relevant interim order must indicate the justification of deferment. It may also be noticed that there are examples galore wherein a witness supports the party examining him in the examination-in-chief (recorded on one particular date) and turns around to ditch that party in the cross examination (recorded on the deferred date). The time intervening the two dates is, obviously, utilized by the defending party to `buy’ the witness. Disposed of accordingly. A copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under the signatures of Special Secretary. 4 Crl. Misc. No. M-29226 of 2009 October 20, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 5