Committal proceedings timetable cannot be delayed without cause; discharge remains available if a Sessions offence is unsupported.

In committal proceedings, the Court held that the timetable need not be modified merely because the accused sought more time to inspect police records, where sufficient adjournments had already been granted and the material complained of was largely irrelevant to the limited committal stage. It further noted that if the police report disclosed a Sessions offence on unsupported or fabricated facts, the accused could still seek discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Magistrate was therefore justified in refusing further delay, and the request for enlargement of time was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to modification of the time-table fixed for the committal proceedings on the ground that he had not been given sufficient opportunity to inspect the police records and prepare for the hearing.

Analysis: The Court held that criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to proceed at a slow pace merely to prolong litigation. It found that sufficient adjournments had already been granted for inspection of records and that the bulk of the material complained of was not relevant to the limited purpose of the committal stage. The Court also noted that if the police report disclosed a Sessions offence on the basis of unsupported or made-up facts, the accused retained the protection of discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Magistrate was therefore justified in refusing further delay.

Conclusion: The request for modification of the time-table was rejected and the petitioner was not entitled to any further enlargement of time.

---