Section 346 BNSS: Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings (Formerly Section 309 CrPC)

Section 346 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

(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 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.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Inquiry Sec 2(1)(g) Investigation Sec 2(1)(h) Victim Sec 2(1)(w)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 346

Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 309 of the CrPC, 1973) regulates trial continuity, mandating day-to-day proceedings once examination of witnesses begins and placing severe statutory fetters on unnecessary adjournments and remand durations.

Day-to-Day Trial Mandate: Once examination of witnesses has begun, proceedings shall be continued day-to-day until all witnesses in attendance have been examined.
Recording of Reasons for Adjournment: Adjournments can be granted only for reasons recorded in writing; advocate's engagement in another court is statutorily declared not to be a valid ground.
Remand Limits During Inquiries: No Magistrate shall remand an accused to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time.
Time Limit for Rape Trials: Inquiries or trials relating to rape offences under BNS must be completed within two months from the date of filing of charge sheet.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220: The Supreme Court issued categorical directions that trial judges must conduct cross-examination of witnesses on the day they are produced; deferring cross-examination leads to witness tampering, hostility, and systemic delays.
State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh, (2001) 4 SCC 667: Held that granting routine adjournments on the mere asking of advocates violates the express statutory mandate of day-to-day trials.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Oppose routine prosecution adjournment applications by citing Section 346 and Vinod Kumar; if the court grants an adjournment despite witnesses being present, insist on the imposition of heavy exemplary costs.