(Sections 344 and 526 (8), Cr.P.C.) Adjournment. There is no warrant for the proposition that at the conclusion of evidence a case must be adjourned for arguments (PC) PLD 1955 FC 14. M Ibrahim v. Crown.
Ss. 302/324/109/148/149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.249 & 439---Accused was released under S.249, Cr.P.C.---Validity--¬Trial Court had released the accused on bail and stopped the proceedings in the case under S.249, Cr.P.C. because the eye-witnesses having absconded, prosecution could not produce them in Court---Prosecution and the complainant party were now in a position to produce the witnesses in Court and they could resort to the Trial Court for revival of the trial as the accused had only been released on bail under S.249, Cr.P.C. and were never acquitted under S.249-A, Cr.P.C.---Trial could commence from the stage it was discontinued-2002 P Cr. L J 159 [Peshawar] st. SHIREEN TAJA---Case
Postponement of criminal proceedings; when proceedings on same ground between the same parties pending in Civil Court; is a matter of prudence and not a rule of law. PLD 1965 Kar. 231 State v. Ilahi Bukhsh. Stay of criminal proceedings pending civil Court suit about the same subject is competent by the High Court (SC) 1969 P.Cr.LJ 411 N. Manakji v. Fakhr Iqbal. (SC) PLD 1968 SC 281 Muhammad Akhtar.
Stay of proceedings under section 526 (8) imperative. Proceedings in disregard of the provisions are illegal and set aside. PLD 1950 BJ 64 Ehat Khatoon v. Crown.
Stay of proceedings on transfer application. Magistrate informed about the transfer of case in the course of the examination or on the conclusion of examination-in-chief of prosecution witness and the Magistrate decided for reasons stated to adjourn the proceedings after cross-examination. Held, the Magistrate was not bound to stay proceedings in the process of examining a witness. PLD 1949 Bal. 12 Wahdat v. Crown.
Adjournment under section 344, Cr.P.C. can only be granted if the Court has taken cognizance of the case, and cognizance can only be taken when the police place before the Court a report under section 190 (1)(b) or interim report so that if the Court does not adjourn the case it should be in a position to commence the enquiry or trial. (DB) PLD 1957 Kar. 210 (FB) = PLD 1959 Kar. 157. The State v. Samiullah Khan.
Magistrate not to go on adjourning case under section 244 indefinitely. Accused has a right to speedy trial and if there is no evidence connecting him with the crime he should not be kept in custody. PLD 1960 Lah. 498. Hamid Hussain.
Postponement sine die is not in accordance with the provisions of this section. The correct method is for the Court to postpone the case, not sine die, but for fixed and definite periods, pending the disposal of the connected case. AIR 1942 Lah. 256 Kehr Singh v. Kirpal Kaur. No sine die adjournment. The only provision in the Cr.P.C. which allows an adjournment is contained in section 344. Adjourning a hearing sine die is not warranted by the code. It would be open to a magistrate to adjourn the inquiry to a given date for any reasonable cause. (DB) 24 Lah. 726 = AIR 1942 Lah. 952. Kehr Singh v. Kirpal Kaur.
"The policy of criminal law is to bring persons accused to justice as speedily as possible so that if they are found guilty they may be punished and if they are found innocent they may be acquitted and discharged. Section 344 does not provide for a sine die adjournment and it cannot possibly be upheld. (DB) AIR 1942 Cal. 219 (221) = 45 CWN 768 (770) Emp. v. Muhammad Ibrahim etc.
"The accused even under section 344, Cr.P.C. cannot be detained indefinitely and without express orders of a magistrate. No person, however, heinous the offence may be, he is alleged to have committed can be detained in custody for a longer period than fifteen days without an express authority of a magistrate. PLD 1951 Pesh 37. Fateh Muhammad PLD 1960 Lah. 498. Hamid Hussain. PLD 1955 Sindh 227. Crown v. Piru.
Long adjournment for over 21/2 years for production of co-accused from jail. Frequent transfers of the case and long and frequent adjournments for production of prosecution evidence. Case pending for 6 years. Proceedings quashed. (DB) PLD 1955 Sindh 227. Crown v. Piru. No adjournment to be given without police report. A police report u/S. 190 (1) (b), Cr.P.C. must be before the Court to take cognizance of the matter. The language of section 344, Cr.P.C. clearly shows that in case the Court is not inclined to grant the request for remand it should be in a position to commence the inquiry or trial. This the Court will not be in a position to do if it is not in a position to take cognizance of the offence and cognizance can be taken only when a report under section 190 (1) (b), Cr.P.C. is submitted. (In this case three persons accused under section 302/34, P.P.C. were released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge, because the accused were arrested on 15-12-1957 but until 9-5-1958 no attempt was made to bring the case before any Court for inquiry. Several remands were obtained by the police and no challan submitted to the Court. The High Court held, on the facts as they were before the Sessions Judge, there was a good case for releasing the accused on bail, and under the circumstances of "this case no exception can be taken to the order under revision. (FB) PLD 1959 Kar. 157 State v. Sami Ullah Khan and others. (DB) PLD 1957 Kar. 210 Darshan Singh.
Absence of a lawyer. The accused is entitled to have an adjournment of his case so as to enable him to secure the services of a pleader whom he wants to engage for the purpose of cross-examining the prosecution witnesses. 17 Cr.LJ 7 Paras Ram v. Jalal Din.
Reasonable cause. Under section 344, a reasonable cause for adjournment is not itself sufficient, there being a discretion left in the magistrate whether he should grant an adjournment in the circumstances before him. (DB) 26 Cr.LJ 1958. Ali Sher v. Mir Muhammad.
Costs of adjournment. The word, "on such terms as it thinks fit" empowers the criminal Courts to grant an adjournment conditionally on payment of the costs of adjournment. Shuldham 1904 PR 20; Ragunandan v. Ramadin, 19 Cr.LJ 6 = 2 Cr.LJ 1 = 25 AWN 256 Mathura Parasad. Costs. The Magistrate can impose costs for an adjournment and costs can also be awarded in sessions trial. 1932 Cr. Cas 598 Sorabji v. Erachshaw AIR 1945 Nag. 209 Foudaya v. Emperor. However, costs cannot be granted for adjournment in appeal or revision 21 Cr.L.J. 201 and 38 Cr.L.J. 119.