Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings
Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with power to postpone or adjourn proceedings. In every inquiry or trial, the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the same shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) In every inquiry or trial, the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the same 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.
(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.]
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.
Section 309, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 346 Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 1
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-6.pdf 2015-01-21 DATE VERIFIED (not same-date ROP order-7; not the earlier 2014-09-23 labelled Judgment order-3). Crl A 554/2012. IEA 137/138: examination-in-chief and cross should be on the same day; long deferral lets the witness be gained over. Hostile evidence is not washed off — usable parts survive (s.154). CrPC 309 adjournments are not a right. Map iea 137/138/154 and crpc 309 (BNSS 346 successor, mapping.csv close).
On this section: s.309 power to postpone or adjourn is not a right of the accused or a tool to stall cross. Examination-in-chief and cross should ordinarily finish the same day (Vinod Kumar).
-
Central Bureau of Investigation vs Anuj Pandey
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Police custody remand under Section 167 Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be authorized by a Magistrate for an accused person arrested during further investigation after charge sheet filing, if the Magistrate is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for such detention. The expression 'accused if in custody' in Section 309(2) CrPC refers only to accused before court at cognizance or trial stage and does not apply to accused arrested during further investigation, whose detention is governed by Section 167 CrPC provisions and safeguards.
On this section: Court interpreted this section (governing remand after cognizance/commencement of trial) as limited to accused before court at that stage. Expression 'accused if in custody' does not apply to those arrested in further investigation, which fall under Section 167 CrPC regime.
-
Central Bureau of Investigation vs Rathin Dandapath
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is arrested during further investigation after a charge sheet has been filed, the provisions of Section 167 CrPC governing detention in police or judicial custody shall apply to such person as long as further investigation continues, and the expression 'accused if in custody' in Section 309(2) CrPC does not include such persons. Consequently, a Magistrate has authority to grant police remand to the investigating agency for such arrested persons if the agency satisfies the legal requirements under Section 167, and cannot refuse such remand merely on the ground that charge sheet has been filed.
On this section: Provides for remand after cognizance and commencement of trial. Court clarified that this section's 'accused if in custody' refers only to accused present at cognizance stage, not those arrested during further investigation.
-
State of U. P vs Shambhu Nath Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once examination of witnesses has commenced in a criminal trial, the trial court is statutorily mandated to continue such examination from day to day until all witnesses in attendance have been examined. When witnesses are present in court, no adjournment or postponement can be granted without examining them except for special reasons recorded in writing. Acquittal on grounds of want of evidence, resulting from trial court's failure to comply with these mandatory provisions of Section 309 CrPC rather than genuine unavailability of evidence, constitutes miscarriage of justice warranting reversal, particularly in serious offences like murder. Trial courts cannot be permitted to flout the parliamentary mandate embodied in Section 309 CrPC on the pretext of procedural flexibility or infrastructure deficiencies.
On this section: Mandates that trial proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible, and when examination of witnesses has begun, it shall continue from day to day until all witnesses in attendance have been examined unless adjournment beyond the following day is necessary for recorded reasons. Applied to find that trial court failed to comply with mandatory requirement of day-to-day examination.
-
Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception in criminal procedure. The presumption of innocence, being a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution, places the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt. Courts must exercise their discretion in granting or refusing bail judiciously, considering all relevant factors including the nature and gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the conduct of the accused during investigation, the delay in trial, and the likelihood of the accused absconding. Investigating agencies must comply with Section 41 and 41A of the CrPC by recording reasons for arrest and for not arresting. Non-compliance with these provisions entitles the accused to bail. Courts must act as guardians of liberty and ensure that personal liberty is protected in accordance with the procedure established by law.
On this section: Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings; day-to-day trial requirement; remand limits
-
Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs The State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an undertrial prisoner has been in custody for an extraordinarily long period (over four years), the trial court has not framed charges, and there is no likelihood of trial being completed within reasonable time despite stringent statutory bail restrictions, the constitutional courts can grant bail on grounds of violation of the fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21. The test for bail is whether the accused will appear at trial, not the seriousness of the crime. Bail cannot be withheld as punishment. The rigours of stringent statutory provisions like Section 43-D(5) of UAPA melt down when the period of incarceration has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence and speedy trial cannot be ensured.
On this section: The Court emphasized stricter compliance with Section 309 to expedite trial proceedings.
-
Haji Mahboob Ahmad vs Kalyan Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India has the constitutional power under Article 142 to transfer criminal proceedings from one court to another to remedy procedural defects and ensure complete justice, even when the High Court has statutory power under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code to do so. This power can be exercised when crimes that shake the secular fabric of the Constitution have allegedly been committed and the accused persons have not been brought to book largely because of procedural defects and the conduct of the investigating agency. The transfer does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution because the procedure established by law itself contemplates such transfers under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the absence of a non-obstante clause in Section 11(1) proviso of the Criminal Procedure Code distinguishes this case from cases where substantive rights are infringed. Additionally, criminal conspiracy charges already contained in a joint charge sheet cannot be separated from the accused persons by discharging them, and all offences committed in the course of the same transaction to accomplish a conspiracy must be tried jointly.
On this section: Adjournment of proceedings - the Court imposed strict restrictions on adjournments to expedite the trial
-
State of Haryana vs Ram Mehar and OTHERS Etc Etc
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power to recall and re-examine witnesses under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure, despite its broad language permitting exercise at any stage of trial, cannot be exercised merely on the ground that defense counsel was ill or inadvertently failed to put certain questions to witnesses. The exercise of such power must be justified by established legal principles requiring that the evidence appears essential to just decision of the case, and must serve the ends of justice by discovering truth and obtaining proper proof of facts. Mere illness of counsel or subsequent discovery of inadvertent omissions in cross-examination by a changed counsel do not constitute valid grounds for recall when substantial trial has proceeded, accused have had multiple opportunities to defend, and no showing is made that justice has been denied. The concept of fair trial, while fundamental to Article 21, must be balanced against the interests of victims and society, and cannot be stretched to such extent that it mortgages the systemic order of conducting trials per the Code of Criminal Procedure or permits abuse of process in the name of fairness.
On this section: Regarding adjournments and continuity of trial; cited to establish that courts have duty to ensure trials proceed expeditiously without unnecessary delays
-
Sudarshanacharya vs Purushottamacharya
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal proceedings, while the right to speedy trial is a fundamental component of Article 21 of the Constitution, courts cannot prescribe automatic or mechanical time limits at the end of which criminal trials must be terminated and the accused acquitted or discharged. Courts must exercise discretion based on the totality of circumstances including the conduct of parties, nature of the offence, and whether allowing proceedings to continue would constitute an abuse of process. The inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code may be invoked to quash proceedings only when the court is satisfied on material on record that continued proceedings would be an abuse of process or when ends of justice require it. In cases involving criminal breach of trust relating to institutional property, where the accused has engaged in delay tactics through repeated discharge applications and the complainant has demonstrated continued interest in prosecution, the continuation of proceedings does not constitute an abuse of process.
On this section: Deals with adjournment and continuance of cases. Court noted this section as an available tool for trial courts to effectuate the right to speedy trial.
-
Feroz Ahmad Zargar vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A criminal court does not have inherent jurisdiction to recall or review its own final orders. Once a court has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, it cannot alter or review the same except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors as provided in Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When a party is aggrieved by a trial court order, the proper remedy is to challenge it before a superior forum (High Court), not to seek recall from the trial court itself. The fact that a judgment relied upon by the trial court has been stayed by a higher court does not confer upon the trial court the power to review its own orders.
On this section: Section 309 governs custody of undertrial prisoners. The petitioner's counsel argued that once preventive detention orders ended, custody should be governed under Section 309, which would require the prisoner to be held in the jurisdiction where trial is pending.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The death sentence was imposed without calling for such report. - II) Mr. Luthra also submitted that the matter also raises question about the applicability of Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the scope and extent of the amended proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 309 pursuant to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018. As a matter of fact, the issue was noted by this Court in its order dated 12.12.2018. Said order further shows that another issue that …
-
… This Court had occasion to consider the provisions of Section 167 and Section 309 Cr.P.C. in large number of cases. In the old code, there was a provision namely Section 344 which was akin to Section 309 of present Code. Section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponds to Section 167 of the old Code. This Court had occasion to consider Section 167 and Section 344 of the old Code in Gouri Shankar Jha vs. State of Bihar and others, 1972 (1) SCC 564 . This Court in paragraph No. 12 laid down following: …
Questions about Section 309
What have the courts held on Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab (21 Jan 2015) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.309 power to postpone or adjourn is not a right of the accused or a tool to stall cross. Examination-in-chief and cross should ordinarily finish the same day (Vinod Kumar). Another 9 judgments on this section are set out below, 9 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2001 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 309, section 309 CRPC, section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 10 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab (21 Jan 2015).
What should I read with Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 346 (Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 309, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.