Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XXIV: General Provisions As to Inquiries and Trials
Section 309: Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
[(1) In every inquiry or trial the proceedings 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:
Provided that when the inquiry or trial relates to an offence under section 376, [section 376A, section 376AB,, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA or section DB of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the inquiry or trial shall] be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the charge sheet.]
(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 by a 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.] 1. Subs. by Act 13 of 2013, s. 21, for sub-section (1) (w.e.f. 3-2-2013). 2. Subs. by Act 22 of 2018, s. 16, for —section 376A, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D‖ (w.e.f. 21-4-2018). 3. Ins. by Act 45 of 1978, s. 24 (w.e.f. 18-12-1978).
[Provided also that—
(a) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party;
(b) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment;
(c) where a witness is present in Court but a party or his pleader is not present or the party or his pleader though present in Court, is not ready to examine or cross-examine the witness, the Court may, if thinks fit, record the statement of the witness and pass such orders as it thinks fit dispensing with the examination-in-chief or cross-examination of the witness, as the case may be.]
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.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 309
-
The Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali
When victim herself has stepped into witness box, whether her examination can be done in piecemeal.
-
Nagarajan & Anr. v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Whether the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be granted to the appellants; if the answer to the aforesaid issue is in the negative, can the reduced sentence that the Food Safety and…
-
Sunita Devi v. The State of Bihar & Anr.
Need for a comprehensive sentencing policy. Trial against the accused under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was conducted by the judicial officer in utmost haste and the accused was denied due…
-
Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office
(a) Whether the complaint filed u/s.44(1)(b) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 will be governed by sections 200 to 205 of the CrPC; (b) If the accused was not arrested by the ED till the filing of the…
-
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kapil Wadhawan & Anr.
Whether the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the statutory right conferred under the proviso to s.167(2), Cr.P.C, on the ground that the investigation qua some of the accused named in the FIR was pending,…
- Chanchalpati Das v. The State of West Bengal &
- Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 5 SCC 453 : 2001
- Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India & Ors.
- In Re: Framing Guidelines Regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances to Be Considered While Imposing Death Sentences v. In Re: Framing Guidelines Regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances to Be Considered While Imposing Death Sentences
- Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency
- In Re: to Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
- Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Pradeep Ram v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
- Accused 'X' v. State of Maharashtra
- State of Kerala v. Rasheed
- Seema Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
- Doongar Singh & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan
- Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar & Ors.
- State of Haryana v. Ram Mehar & Others Etc. Etc.
- Subrata Chatioraj v. Union of India & Ors.
- Ag v. Shiv Kumar Yadav &Anr.
- Central Bureau of Investigation v. Rathin Dandapat and Others
- Sirajul & Ors. v. The State of U.P. &Anr.
- Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India Through Its Secretary & Anr.
- Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab