The criminal dispensation system casts a heavy burden on the trial Judge to have control over the proceedings. The criminal justice system has to be placed on a proper pedestal and it cannot be left to the whims and fancies of the parties or their counsel. A trial Judge cannot be a mute spectator to the trial being controlled by the parties, for it is his primary duty to monitor the trial and such a monitoring has to be in consonance with the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the instant case, the Supreme Court expressed anguish, agony and concern about the manner in which the trial had been conducted. The Court held that the trial courts shall keep in mind the statutory provisions and the interpretation placed by the Supreme Court and are not to be guided by their own thinking or should not become mute spectators when a trial is being conducted by allowing the control to the counsel for the parties. The administration of justice reflects its purity when the Bench and the Bar perform their duties with utmost sincerity. An advocate cannot afford to bring any kind of disrespect to fairness of trial by taking recourse to subterfuges for procrastinating the same.
Gurnaib Singh v. State of Punjab, Crl. A. No. 744 of 2013; Decided on 10-5-2013 (SC) [K.S. Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra, JJ.]