Application for Day-to-Day Trial – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft

Posted on July 8 by Suprajaa Rajan

A practical legal remedy to request the court to conduct continuous day-to-day hearings for the expeditious disposal of a criminal case.

Delay in criminal trials often results in prolonged litigation, increased costs, fading witness memory, and unnecessary hardship to both the accused and the complainant. Recognising the importance of a speedy trial as an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, courts have repeatedly emphasized that criminal proceedings should be concluded without avoidable adjournments.

An Application for Day-to-Day Trial requests the court to hear the matter on consecutive working days until the recording of evidence or the trial is completed. Such applications are particularly useful where the matter has been pending for several years, witnesses are repeatedly attending court, or the case requires urgent disposal.

This article explains the legal framework, grounds for seeking day-to-day trial, drafting strategy, and provides a ready-to-use sample format with copy-to-clipboard functionality.

I. Legal Framework

The principle of day-to-day trial is recognised under the following provisions:

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Section 309 CrPC – Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings; mandates that examination of witnesses should ordinarily continue from day to day until all witnesses in attendance have been examined.

Corresponding Provision under BNSS, 2023

Section 346 BNSS – Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings; retains the principle that evidence should ordinarily be recorded on a day-to-day basis.

Additionally, the right to a speedy trial forms part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

II. What is an Application for Day-to-Day Trial?

An Application for Day-to-Day Trial is a formal request made before the trial court seeking continuous hearing of the case without unnecessary adjournments.

The applicant requests the court to:

Fix consecutive hearing dates.
Record witness evidence without interruption.
Minimise unnecessary delays.
Ensure expeditious completion of the trial.

The application seeks procedural efficiency, not preferential treatment.

III. When Should This Application Be Filed?

This application may be filed when:

The trial has remained pending for several years.
Frequent adjournments are delaying proceedings.
Witnesses are repeatedly attending court without examination.
The accused is suffering prejudice due to delay.
The complainant seeks early adjudication.
Senior citizens, women, or vulnerable witnesses are involved.
Documentary and oral evidence is ready for recording.

Therefore, it is most effective once the matter reaches the evidence stage.

IV. Why is This Application Important?

Filing this application helps to:

Protect the constitutional right to a speedy trial.
Reduce unnecessary adjournments.
Prevent witnesses from turning hostile due to prolonged delay.
Lower litigation costs.
Improve judicial efficiency.
Facilitate early disposal of the case.

Thus, it benefits both parties as well as the administration of justice.

V. Factors Considered by the Court

While deciding the application, the court may consider:

Age of the case.
Stage of the trial.
Number of remaining witnesses.
Reasons for previous adjournments.
Availability of parties and advocates.
Nature and complexity of the case.
Court’s existing docket.

The court ultimately exercises its discretion while balancing fairness and judicial convenience.

VI. Essential Elements of the Application

Before drafting, ensure the application includes:

Name of the court.
Case number.
Stage of the proceedings.
Brief history of delays.
Grounds seeking day-to-day trial.
Reference to Section 309 CrPC (Section 346 BNSS).
Prayer for continuous hearing.

A concise and well-supported application is more likely to receive favourable consideration.

VII. Drafting Strategy

While preparing the application:

Mention the period for which the matter has remained pending.
Avoid blaming the opposite party unless supported by the record.
Highlight prejudice caused by delay.
Cite the statutory requirement for day-to-day evidence.
Emphasise readiness to proceed without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

A practical and balanced approach strengthens the application.

VIII. Sample Draft Format – Application for Day-to-Day Trial

Sample Draft – Application for Day-to-Day Trial

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE [COURT NAME]
AT [PLACE]
Case No. ________
State / Complainant
…Applicant
Versus
[Name of Accused]
…Respondent/Accused
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 309 CrPC
(SECTION 346 BNSS)
SEEKING DAY-TO-DAY TRIAL
The Applicant most respectfully submits:
1. That the above-mentioned criminal case is presently pending before this Hon’ble Court and is fixed for recording of evidence.
2. That the matter has remained pending for a considerable period and repeated adjournments have delayed the progress of the trial.
3. That further delay is likely to prejudice the rights of the parties and may adversely affect the quality of evidence.
4. That Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides that the examination of witnesses should ordinarily continue from day to day until all witnesses in attendance have been examined.
5. That the Applicant is ready to proceed with the trial and undertakes not to seek unnecessary adjournments.
6. It is therefore in the interest of justice that this Hon’ble Court may kindly direct that the matter be taken up on a day-to-day basis until completion of evidence.
PRAYER
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to conduct the trial on a day-to-day basis in accordance with Section 309 CrPC (Section 346 BNSS) and pass such other order as deemed fit in the interest of justice.

Place: _______
Date: _______

Counsel for the Applicant

IX. Common Mistakes to Avoid

Avoid:

Filing the application at an inappropriate stage of the proceedings.
Seeking day-to-day trial while frequently requesting adjournments yourself.
Making unsupported allegations against the opposite party.
Failing to mention the prejudice caused by delay.
Ignoring the court’s existing schedule and workload.

Instead, present a balanced request demonstrating readiness to proceed and commitment to an expeditious trial.

Conclusion

An Application for Day-to-Day Trial is an effective procedural tool to secure the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial. When filed with genuine reasons and at the appropriate stage, it assists the court in minimizing delays, preserving the quality of evidence, and ensuring timely justice for all parties.

Index of Legal Templates and Drafting is here.

Legal

Disclaimer

These templates are provided for educational and informational purposes. Every case depends on specific facts and procedural posture. Professional legal advice should be obtained before filing any application.

Mukesh Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh on 30 Sep 2022

Posted on October 9, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follow, relying on Vinod Kumar here.

The mandate of law itself postulate that examination-in-chief followed with cross-examination is to be recorded either on the same day or on the day following. In other words, there should not be any ground for adjournment in recording the examination-in-chief/cross-examination of the prosecution witness, as the case may be.
We do not want to dilate at this stage since the trial is pending but we would like to observe that the learned trial judge may take a note of the judgment of this Court in reference to Section 309 Cr.P.C. and not only expedite the trial but the examination-in-chief/cross-examination is to be recorded either on the same day or on the day following but no long adjournment should be granted while recording the statement of prosecution witnesses.

Mukesh Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh on 30 Sep 2022

Citations:

Other Sources:

Doongar Singh and Ors Vs The State Of Rajasthan on 28 Nov 2017

Posted on May 20, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court passed the following guidelines…

13. To conclude:
(i) The trial courts must carry out the mandate of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. as reiterated in judgments of this Court, inter alia, in State of U.P. versus Shambhu Nath Singh and Others, Mohd. Khalid versus State of W.B. and Vinod Kumar versus State of Punjab.
(ii) The eye-witnesses must be examined by the prosecution as soon as possible.
(iii) Statements of eye-witnesses should invariably be recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. as per procedure prescribed thereunder.

Doongar Singh and Ors Vs The State Of Rajasthan on 28 Nov 2017

Citations : [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 1391], [2017 SCALE 13 752], [2018 SCC 13 741], [2019 SCC CRI 1 410], [2017 CTC 6 883], [2018 KLT 1 629], [2018 AIC 183 5], [2018 ECRN 1 667], [2017 AIR SC SUPP 328]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/99075271/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5a261fe74a9326744f39e37e

State (NCT of Delhi) Vs Shiv Kumar Yadav and Anr on 10 Sep 2015

Posted on October 11, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

After giving some inputs to Law commission and Bar Council of India in this para,

16. The interest of justice may suffer if the counsel conducting the trial is physically or mentally unfit on account of any disability. The interest of the society is paramount and instead of trials being conducted again on account of unfitness of the counsel, reform may appear to be necessary so that such a situation does not arise. Perhaps time has come to review the Advocates Act and the relevant Rules to examine the continued fitness of an advocate to conduct a criminal trial on account of advanced age or other mental or physical infirmity, to avoid grievance that an Advocate who conducted trial was unfit or incompetent. This is an aspect which needs to be looked into by the concerned authorities including the Law Commission and the Bar Council of India.

Supreme Court passed these reasons for not recalling a witness

29. We may now sum up our reasons for disapproving the view of the High Court in the present case:
(i) The trial court and the High Court held that the accused had appointed counsel of his choice. He was facing trial in other cases also. The earlier counsel were given due opportunity and had duly conducted cross-examination. They were under no handicap;
(ii) No finding could be recorded that the counsel appointed by the accused were incompetent particularly at back of such counsel;
(iiii) Expeditious trial in a heinous offence as is alleged in the present case is in the interests of justice;
(iv) The trial Court as well as the High Court rejected the reasons for recall of the witnesses;
(v) The Court has to keep in mind not only the need for giving fair opportunity to the accused but also the need for ensuring that the victim of the crime is not unduly harassed;
(vi) Mere fact that the accused was in custody and that he will suffer by the delay could be no consideration for allowing recall of witnesses, particularly at the fag end of the trial;
(vii) Mere change of counsel cannot be ground to recall the witnesses;
(viii) There is no basis for holding that any prejudice will be caused to the accused unless the witnesses are recalled;
(ix) The High Court has not rejected the reasons given by the trial court nor given any justification for permitting recall of the witnesses except for making general observations that recall was necessary for ensuring fair trial. This observation is contrary to the reasoning of the High Court in dealing with the grounds for recall, i.e., denial of fair opportunity on account of incompetence of earlier counsel or on account of expeditious proceedings;
(x) There is neither any patent error in the approach adopted by the trial court rejecting the prayer for recall nor any clear injustice if such prayer is not granted.

Citations : [2016 ACR SC 1 142], [2016 ALT CRL AP 1 167], [2016 MPJR 1 1], [2016 NCC 1 393], [2016 SCC 2 402], [2016 SCJ 1 93], [2015 AIR SC 3501], [2015 AD SC 10 165], [2015 ALLCC 91 640], [2015 BOMCR CRI 4 366], [2015 CCR SC 3 468], [2015 CRILJ 4640], [2015 CRIMES SC 4 1], [2015 JLJR 4 97], [2015 PLJR 4 258], [2015 RCR CRIMINAL 4 312], [2015 RLW SC 4 3271], [2015 SCALE 9 649], [2015 UC 3 1794], [2016 SCC CRI 1 510], [2015 SCC ONLINE SC 799], [2015 AIC 155 68], [2015 CRI LJ 4640]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33982557/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5790b391e561097e45a4e3ea

Ambika Prasad and Anr Vs State (Delhi Administration) on 21 Jan 2000

Posted on October 11, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held as follows when Cross-examination of a Prosecution witness was adjourned/deferred to over 1 year.

It is also to be pointed out that PW4 Vikram Singh (informant) who had lodged FIR immediately was under constant threat and was compelled not to speak the truth despite the fact that he was the brother of deceased. Other witnesses also turned hostile including PW6 Prem Singh son of Pratap Singh and PW8 Rattan Lal, which indicates, as observed by the High Court, that accused party was stronger in terms of money power and muscle power. At this stage, we would observe that the Sessions Judge ought to have followed the mandate of Section 309 Cr.P.C. of completing the trial by examining the witnesses from day to day and not giving a chance to accused to threaten or win over the witnesses so that they may not support the prosecution. It appears from the record that examination-in-chief of PW4 Vikram Singh was over on 06.2.1984. The counsel representing Ambika Prasad requested the court that because of his uncles demise, he would not be in a position to cross-examine the witness and, therefore, recording of further cross-examination might be adjourned. Thereafter, the witness was cross-examined in the month of July, 1985. In our view, this is highly improper. Even if the request for adjournment of the learned counsel for the accused was accepted, the cross-examination ought not to have been deferred beyond two or three days.

Ambika Prasad and Anr Vs State (Delhi Administration) on 21 Jan 2000

Citations : [2000 ACR SC 1 282], [2000 AIR SC 718], [2000 ALD CRI 1 460], [2000 CRI LJ 810], [2000 JT SC 1 273], [2000 RCR CRIMINAL 1 64], [2000 SCALE 1 219], [2000 SCC 2 646], [2000 SCR 1 342], [2000 SCC CRI 522], [2000 DLT 83 476], [2000 AIR SC 719], [2000 SCC 2 464], [2000 ACC 40 462], [2000 SCO 2 646], [2000 AIR SC 253], [2000 CRIMES SC 2 63], [2000 SUPREME 2 633], [2000 CRLJ 106 810], [2000 CCR 1 130], [2000 RCR CRIMINAL 1 643], [2000 SCJ 2 472], [2000 SLT 1 442], [2000 SRJ 2 235], [2000 JCC SC 1 197], [2000 SCC SC 1 197], [2000 CRIMES 2 63], [2000 CRLJ SC 810], [2000 RECENTCR 1 643], [2000 AIR SCW 253]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151141/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad6ee4b014971141165e

Delhi Administration Vs Vishwanath Lugnani and Ors on 30 Jul 1980

Posted on October 11, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Since the prosecution wasted years in bringing in the prosecution witnesses to Court for examination, Trial Court denied to provide any adjournments. High Court held it correct.

Delhi Administration Vs Vishwanath Lugnani and Ors on 30 Jul 1980

Citations : [1981 AIR SC 1239], [1981 SUPP SCC 1 64], [1982 SCC CRI 139], [1980 CAR 343], [1980 CRLR 470], [1980 UJ SC 832], [1981 CRLJ SC 745]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1828992/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abece4b014971140da6a#

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab on 21 Jan 2015

Posted on October 9, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Dipak Misra decried the practice of Trial/Session Court judges in giving adjournments on mere asking by the parties, in spite of the presence of the witnesses willing to be examined fully.

From Para 41,

41. Before parting with the case we are constrained to reiterate what we have said in the beginning. We have expressed our agony and anguish the manner in which trials in respect of serious offences relating to corruption are being conducted by the trial courts. Adjournments are sought on the drop of a hat by the counsel, even though the witness is present in court, contrary to all principles of holding a trial. That apart, after the examination-in-chief of a witness is over, adjournment is sought for cross-examination and the disquieting feature is that the trial courts grant time. The law requires special reasons to be recorded for grant of time but the same is not taken note of. As has been noticed earlier, in the instant case the cross-examination has taken place after a year and 8 months allowing ample time to pressurize the witness and to gain over him by adopting all kinds of tactics. There is no cavil over the proposition that there has to be a fair and proper trial but the duty of the court while conducting the trial to be guided by the mandate of the law, the conceptual fairness and above all bearing in mind its sacrosanct duty to arrive at the truth on the basis of the material brought on record. If an accused for his benefit takes the trial on the path of total mockery, it cannot be countenanced. The Court has a sacred duty to see that the trial is conducted as per law. If adjournments are granted in this manner it would tantamount to violation of rule of law and eventually turn such trials to a farce. It is legally impermissible and jurisprudentially abominable. The trial courts are expected in law to follow the command of the procedure relating to trial and not yield to the request of the counsel to grant adjournment for non-acceptable reasons. In fact, it is not all appreciable to call a witness for cross-examination after such a long span of time. It is imperative if the examination-in-chief is over, the cross-examination should be completed on the same day. If the examination of a witness continues till late hours the trial can be adjourned to the next day for cross-examination. It is inconceivable in law that the cross-examination should be deferred for such a long time. It is anathema to the concept of proper and fair trial. The duty of the court is to see that not only the interest of the accused as per law is protected but also the societal and collective interest is safe-guarded. It is distressing to note that despite series of judgments of this Court, the habit of granting adjournment, really an ailment, continues. How long shall we say, “Awake! Arise!”. There is a constant discomfort. Therefore, we think it appropriate that the copies of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Justices of all the High Courts for circulating the same among the learned trial Judges with a command to follow the principles relating to trial in a requisite manner and not to defer the cross-examination of a witness at their pleasure or at the leisure of the defence counsel, for it eventually makes the trial an apology for trial and compels the whole society to suffer chicanery. Let it be remembered that law cannot allowed to be lonely; a destitute.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab on 21 Jan 2015

Citations: [2015 SCC 3 220], [2015 SCC ONLINE SC 53]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/188951670/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/581180e72713e179479dda10

This was followed in this decision here.

Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes and Ors Vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) thru LRs on 21 Mar 2012

Posted on October 6, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Shri Dalveer Bhandari J has held so with regards to civil cases such as DVC, HMA24 etc…

42. In civil cases, adherence to Section 30 CPC would alsohelp in ascertaining the truth. It seems that this provision which ought to be frequently used is rarely pressed in serviceby our judicial officers and judges. Section 30 CPC reads as under:-
30. Power to order discovery and the like. –
Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Court may, at any time either of its own motion or on the application of any party, –
(a) make such orders as may be necessary or reasonable in all matters relating to the delivery and answering of interrogatories, the admission of documents and facts, and the discovery, inspection, production, impounding and return of documents or other material objects producible as evidence;
(b) issue summons to persons whose attendance is required either to give evidence or to produce documents or such other objects as aforesaid;
(c) order any fact to be proved by affidavit

Regarding punishing perjurers:

82. This Court in a recent judgment in Ramrameshwari Devi aptly observed at p. 266, para 43 that unless wrongdoers are denied profit from frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to prevent it. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that the court’s otherwise scarce time is consumed or more appropriately, wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases. In this very judgment, the Court provided that this problem can be solved or at least can be minimised if exemplary costs is imposed for instituting frivolous litigation. The Court observed at pp. 267-68, para 58 that imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and/or ordering prosecution in appropriate cases would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases, the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings.

Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes and Ors Vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) thru LRs on 21 Mar 2012

Citations: [2012 SCC CIV 3 126], [2012 AIR SC 1727], [2012 AIR SC 2162], [2012 RCR CIVIL SC 2 441], [2012 SCALE 3 550], [2012 AIR BOMR 3 857], [2012 AIOL 139], [2012 SLT 2 753], [2012 JT 3 451], [2012 BOMCR SC 4 75], [2012 CCC SC 2 344], [2012 SUPREME 2 602], [2012 SCC 5 370], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 281], [2012 ALR 92 251], [2012 LW 3 111], [2012 AIC 113 212], [2012 ALD 4 1], [2012 ALT SC 3 518], [2012 AWC SC 4 3645], [2012 CUT LT 114 437], [2012 SCSUPPL CHN 3 1]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/100486606/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af13e4b014971141585f

CrPC 309 – Power to Postpone or Adjourn Proceedings

Posted on September 30, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

(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 376DB 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:]
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.

Landmark judgments from Supreme Court are here (2013) and here (2018).

State of Kerala Vs Rasheed on 30 October 2018

Posted on August 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court laid down the following practice guidelines to be followed by all Trial Courts, while conducting a criminal trial.

From Para 12,

12. The following practice guidelines should be followed by trial courts in the conduct of a criminal trial, as far as possible:
i. a detailed case-calendar must be prepared at the commencement of the trial after framing of charges;
ii. the case-calendar must specify the dates on which the examination-in-chief and cross-examination (if required) of witnesses is to be conducted;
iii. the case-calendar must keep in view the proposed order of production of witnesses by parties, expected time required for examination of witnesses, availability of witnesses at the relevant time, and convenience of both the prosecution as well as the defence, as far as possible;
iv. testimony of witnesses deposing on the same subject-matter must be proximately scheduled;
v. the request for deferral under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. must be preferably made before the preparation of the case-calendar;
vi. the grant for request of deferral must be premised on sufficient reasons justifying the deferral of cross-examination of each witness, or set of witnesses;
vii. while granting a request for deferral of cross-examination of any witness, the trial courts must specify a proximate date for the cross-examination of that witness, after the examination-in-chief of such witness(es) as has been prayed for;
viii. the case-calendar, prepared in accordance with the above guidelines, must be followed strictly, unless departure from the same becomes absolutely necessary;
ix. in cases where trial courts have granted a request for deferral, necessary steps must be taken to safeguard witnesses from being subjected to undue influence, harassment or intimidation.

State of Kerala Vs Rasheed on 30 October 2018

Citations: [2018 SCC ONLINE SC 2251], [2019 SCC 13 297], [2019 SCC CRI 4 552], [2019 AIR SC 721], [2018 KLT 4 783], [2018 CRIMES 4 288], [2018 AIC 192 212], [2019 CRI LJ 1516], [2019 KLJ 2 398], [2019 ECRN 1 46], [2018 INSC 1021]

Other sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187514485/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5bdfde204a93267eadff9b10

Supreme Court initiate a Suomoto WP here to assess the effectiveness of the Guidelines issue above.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: CrPC 309 – Power to Postpone or Adjourn Proceedings

Application for Day-to-Day Trial – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft

I. Legal Framework

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Corresponding Provision under BNSS, 2023

II. What is an Application for Day-to-Day Trial?

III. When Should This Application Be Filed?

IV. Why is This Application Important?

V. Factors Considered by the Court

VI. Essential Elements of the Application

VII. Drafting Strategy

VIII. Sample Draft Format – Application for Day-to-Day Trial

Sample Draft – Application for Day-to-Day Trial

IX. Common Mistakes to Avoid

Conclusion

Disclaimer

Mukesh Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh on 30 Sep 2022

Doongar Singh and Ors Vs The State Of Rajasthan on 28 Nov 2017

State (NCT of Delhi) Vs Shiv Kumar Yadav and Anr on 10 Sep 2015

Ambika Prasad and Anr Vs State (Delhi Administration) on 21 Jan 2000

Delhi Administration Vs Vishwanath Lugnani and Ors on 30 Jul 1980

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab on 21 Jan 2015

Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes and Ors Vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) thru LRs on 21 Mar 2012

CrPC 309 – Power to Postpone or Adjourn Proceedings

State of Kerala Vs Rasheed on 30 October 2018