SC: "At any rate inconvenience of an advocate is not a “special reason” for bypassing the mandate of laws"

"We make it clear that the legislature has frowned at granting adjournments on any ground... At any rate inconvenience of an advocate is not a “special reason” for bypassing the mandate of Section 309 of the Code." with these strict warning, in the matters of CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1735 OF 2009 instiyuted by Akil @ Javed, The Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, during the last month, well before the outrage of the Gang-rape event in Delhi, has strictly directed the Registry to forward a copy of its recent decision to all the High Courts to specifically follow the instructions issued by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Rajdeo Sharma (supra) and reiterated in Shambhu Nath (supra) by issuing appropriate circular, if already not issued, with an instruction that If such circular has already been issued, as directed, it is ordered to ensure that such directions are scrupulously followed by the trial Courts without providing scope for any deviation in following the procedure prescribed in the matter of a trial of sessions cases as well as other cases as provided under Section 309 of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court further observed that"It is no justification to glide on any alibi by blaming the infrastructure for skirting the legislative mandates embalmed in Section 309 of the Code. A judicious judicial officer who is committed to his work could manage with the existing infrastructure for complying with such legislative mandates. The precept in the old homily that a lazy workman always blames his tools, is the only answer to those indolent judicial officers who find fault with the defects in the system and the imperfections of the existing infrastructure for their tardiness in coping with such directions.” In this respect, the High Courts are also well advised by the Supreme Court to use their machinery in the respective State Judicial Academy to achieve the desired result, and to take serious note of the above directions issued in the decisions reported in Rajdeo Sharma (supra) which has been extensively quoted and reiterated in the subsequent decision of this Court reported in Shambhu Nath (supra) and comply with the directions at least in the future years.The Apex Court has issueed directions in the light of the provisions contained in Section 231 read along with Section 309 of Cr.P.C. for the trial Court to strictly adhere to the procedure prescribed therein in order to ensure speedy trial of cases and also rule out the possibility of any maneuvering taking place by granting undue long adjournment for mere asking.