The Karnataka high court recently comprising of a bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav in an interim order has issued several guidelines for the speedy disposal of criminal cases against politicians and influential persons, including a deadline of 90 days for serious offences. (Sujit v. The Superintendent Of Police)
The Court however said that the trial courts could extend the period on request made by the police by assigning reasons for extension of time for completing the investigation.
Facts of the case
The interim order issued on May 17 came on a petition by Sujit Mulgund, who alleged corruption charges against Abhay Kumar Patil, a two-time MLA from Belgaum South constituency. The complaint sought investigation into disproportionate assets of Patil.
The complainant alleged that he is subject to constant threats to his life and relentless harassment since the time he filed the complaint. Patil and his henchmen are allegedly harassing Mulgund and forcing him to withdraw the complaint.
Mulgund had filed a private complaint of corruption charges against the politician.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The court citing inordinate delay in the case, noted that the complaint was originally filed in 2012 but till date, no charge sheet has been filed by the investigating police. The case is now being investigated by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Belagavi.
The court issued the following guidelines-
For speedy Investigation:
i) Offenses may be categorized into (a) petty offenses (b) serious offenses and (c) heinous offenses. As regards petty offenses, the time limit of 60 days could be fixed for completion of investigation which could be extended by the Special Judge/Magistrate upon request made, assigning reasons for extension of time for investigation to be completed.
As regards serious and heinous offenses, a time limit of 90 days could be stipulated with provision to extend such a time period upon request by the Special Judge / Magistrate upon reasons being made out. Such an intervention may be necessary in light of the approach of the Apex Court in the case of Abdul Rehman Antulay and Others v. R S Nayak and Another reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225 where Guidelines were laid down for speedy trial of criminal proceedings.
The court also noted the concerns underlying the Right to speedy trial from the point of view of the accused. Accordingly it said, "The period of remand and pre-conviction detention should be as short as possible. In other words, the accused should not be subjected to unnecessary or unduly long incarceration prior to his conviction;
ii) In the event the investigation is not completed within the time prescribed and the superior officer is of the opinion that there are no justifiable reasons for completion of the investigation, power can be exercised under Section 36 of Cr.P.C. by the Superior Officer.
iii) The Magistrate / Special Judge can invoke power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to ensure investigation is expeditious and pass appropriate directions where the investigation appears to be procrastinated to the prejudice of the complainant and would have the effect of derailing the investigation. The Magistrate can upon application filed or otherwise seek a report from the concerned authority as regards delay in investigation.
(iv) Where grievance relates to non-registration of first information report and application under 156(3) has been filed, same may be disposed of within a period preferably not exceeding thirty days as relief sought for itself is relating to non-registration of FIR.
(v) The Magistrate at the stage of extension of remand under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. could enquire regarding stage of Investigation.
vi) Many a time the prosecutor is required to take a call on need for examination of multiple witnesses. Once any one witness is examined on a particular aspect and if the evidence is clear and not shaky, the summoning of additional witnesses is to be avoided, as summoning multiple witnesses to speak on the same aspect results in prolonging trial and gives room to the defense to exploit contradictions amongst witnesses speaking on the same aspect.
vii) Setting up a separate investigation wing with dedicated personnel in police stations with necessary training imparted so as to inculcate professionalism in investigation.
viii) Personnel involved may be subjected to training relating to modus operandi in commission of crime, strategies of unearthing crimes and their detection, and steps to be taken to familiarize them with necessary knowledge relating to technology involved in commission of cyber crimes, money laundering and corruption offenses.
ix) In the event of failure to complete investigation in an expeditious manner provisions under Section 20(C) and 20(D) of the Karnataka Police Act(for misconduct) can be invoked and a complaint could be made to the State and District Police Complaint Authority. In fact, delay in completing investigation can be a ground to invoke Section 20(C) in terms of the Explanation to Section 20(C)(7). This would ensure accountability of the investigating officers.
x) The delay in investigation and consequent delay in trial, places the complainant as well as the witnesses in a vulnerable position and the protection mechanism requires to be evolved.
xi) Necessary efforts for bifurcation of law and order, and crime investigation as regards personnel needs to be implemented.
xii) In order to overcome fear and reluctance on the part of the public to be arraigned as witnesses, steps must be taken to implement the Witness Protection Scheme.
xiii) Necessary mechanism needs to be designed to implement the mandate of Order No.1550, 1550 (2), 1551 (2) and (3) of the Karnataka Police Manual.
xiv) The Authorities concerned may consider having provisions for the purpose of speedy and effective investigation by framing Regulations in lines of Police Regulations Bengal, 1943
xv) In cases involving influential public personalities, resort to Section 164 Cr.P.C., should be made more frequently.
xvi) While investigation of offenses under the provisions of Cr.P.C. is the exclusive domain of the police, the Judicial Magistrate should have a role to play to counter the moves of persons in influential positions to subvert the effective process of investigation. Accordingly, the I.O. shall bring to the notice of Magistrate the bottlenecks, if any, that are coming in the way of speedy investigation including the attempts being made by the accused to hinder the investigation. The Magistrate shall, apart from taking such steps as are permissible under law, for example, issuing summons for the production of documents in the custody of suspect/accused/or a third party, may also send a report to the District Judge for appropriate action on the administrative side to eliminate delays.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :