Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 346
Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings
(1) In every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be continued from day-to-day basis 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 64, section 65, section 66, section 67, section 68, section 70 or section 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) the inquiry or trial shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the chargesheet.
(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 Court 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: 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) where the circumstances are beyond the control of a party, not more than two adjournments may be granted by the Court after hearing the objections of the other party and for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
(c) the fact that the advocate of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment;
(d) where a witness is present in Court but a party or his advocate is not present or the party or his advocate 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.
Why this exists
This provision responds to the chronic problem of delayed trials in India, where cases can drag on for years through repeated adjournments. By mandating day-to-day hearings, capping remand periods, limiting adjournments to genuine, recorded reasons, and setting strict time limits for certain sexual-offence trials, it aims to protect both the accused's right to a speedy trial and the public interest in efficient justice.
How courts read it
Under the earlier, similarly worded Code of Criminal Procedure provision, courts including the Supreme Court repeatedly emphasised that adjournments should be the exception, not the rule, and criticised the practice of routine, mechanical adjournments that let trials languish for years, causing hardship to undertrial prisoners and witnesses alike.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: A lawyer being busy in another court is always a valid reason to delay a trial.
Fact: The law specifically says a lawyer's engagement in another court is not, by itself, a ground for adjournment.