Fifty-Two Items on the Board and One Man in Custody Fourteen Months
You are the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Barpeta, with 3,640 pending cases, of which 1,240 are complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On 14 July 2025 the cause list has 52 items. Three of them matter particularly. First, Cr. Case No. 312/2024, in which the accused, a first-time offender, has been in custody for fourteen months; the offence alleged is punishable with imprisonment up to three years, and the Public Prosecutor seeks adjournment because a witness is on leave. Second, a partition suit in which the 74-year-old plaintiff seeks an urgent interim injunction against demolition of a boundary wall by the defendant, who has threatened to demolish it on 16 July 2025; the suit has not been marked urgent by the registry. Third, a Section 138 complaint of 2019 in which the complainant's counsel seeks exemption from appearance and the accused, a serving soldier posted in Nagaland, is absent because he mistook the date. The Bar Association has given notice of a strike on 16 July 2025.
1. Is the undertrial in Cr. Case No. 312/2024 entitled to release, and can the prosecution's request for adjournment defeat that entitlement?
Read the worked answer
The applicable provision is Section 479 BNSS (earlier Section 436A CrPC), which requires the release of an undertrial who has served half of the maximum sentence for the offence. The BNSS proviso goes further for a first-time offender: one who has undergone detention extending to one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment is to be released on a bond, with conditions, unless the court for reasons to be recorded directs otherwise.
Computation: maximum sentence three years, that is, thirty-six months. One-third is twelve months; half would be eighteen. The accused has served fourteen months. He therefore falls within the first-time offender proviso, and release is the rule, not a concession.
The only lawful reasons for deferral would be a finding that he is not a first-time offender, or a recorded reason under the proviso justifying refusal - not the pendency of the trial and certainly not the absence of a witness.
The court should act on its own motion, without waiting for an application, record the finding of first-time offender status and the period of detention, and release him on a bond with sureties and a condition of appearance on every date. The witness who is on leave should be secured for the next date, and the trial expedited. Release under the provision does not grant immunity: if the bond conditions are breached, he may be re-arrested.
2. How will you deal with the 74-year-old plaintiff's urgent application when the case is not on the urgent list, and what are the requirements for the order you contemplate?
Read the worked answer
Matters of genuine urgency are decided by the court, not by the registry's list. The threat of demolition on 16 July gives a concrete date, and a plaintiff of that age facing self-help by the defendant is entitled to be heard the same day.
Procedure: permit an oral mention supported by an affidavit, direct the registry to number the application at once and place it before the court, and do not allow a defect in the plaint or want of marking as 'urgent' to postpone the hearing.
Substance: the requirements are those of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Rule 3 CPC - the application must be supported by an affidavit, the court must be satisfied of a prima facie case, irreparable injury and the balance of convenience, and where an ex parte order is made, the court must record its reasons and the order must be limited in time.
On the merits: a boundary wall of long standing cannot be demolished by the defendant without due process; the balance of convenience during the hearing lies in preserving the status quo. The order should be narrowly drawn - status quo as to that wall alone, not a general restraint on the defendant - and should direct service of the application and order on the defendant with the next date fixed for hearing, so that it operates as a short, temporary protection rather than a final adjudication.
3. How will you handle the 2019 Section 138 complaint and the absent soldier on the strike day, and what is your approach to the Bar Association's notice?
Read the worked answer
The complaint is already six years old; the delay is itself a reason not to adjourn casually.
Absent accused. Personal attendance may be dispensed with where the accused appears through a pleader, and a serving soldier posted in Nagaland is a fit case for exemption. On an application supported by a certificate from his unit, exempt him and proceed in his absence through his counsel, or, if unrepresented, issue a bailable warrant or route the process through his unit rather than issuing a non-bailable warrant in the first instance. A warrant is a last resort, and absence due to a mistaken date, where the mistake is bona fide, does not warrant coercive process.
Complainant's counsel seeking exemption. Grant it on a proper application and hear the matter.
The strike. An abstention by lawyers does not oblige the court to adjourn. The court may pass orders in uncontested matters, hear parties in person, and adjourn only where a party would be prejudiced, recording its reasons. The record should show that the strike was not treated as a ground for adjournment.
The wider point is that the 1,240 Section 138 complaints cannot be tried conventionally; the court should use mediation, the Legal Services Authority and Lok Adalats for the stage of settlement while keeping contested trial slots for old matters.