The Madras High Court has emphasized the importance of scrutinizing final reports by Public Prosecutors before they are submitted in court, particularly in sensitive cases.
While the law does not mandate Investigating Officers (IOs) to seek the opinion of Public Prosecutors before filing final reports, the court noted that such scrutiny by legally trained minds can help eliminate errors, ensure the reports' legal sustainability, and save the court's time.
Justices MS Ramesh and Anand Venkatesh directed the Director of Prosecution to issue a circular to all Public Prosecutors in Tamil Nadu, urging them to promptly deal with final reports placed before them for scrutiny. The court clarified that the purpose of scrutiny is not to seek an opinion but to ensure that the final reports are filed effectively and in a legally sustainable manner. Any identified defects can be communicated to the investigating officer, who can rectify them before filing the report in court.
The circular will explicitly state that delays in scrutinizing the final reports should not be the reason for exceeding the statutory period prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and other special laws.
The court's directive came during a criminal appeal where it had previously issued various orders to sensitize the state police regarding effective investigations. In compliance with these orders, the State Public Prosecutor informed the court that an orientation program had been conducted for Public Prosecutors statewide, aiming to enhance their understanding of effective investigation techniques and the timely filing of final reports.
The High Court commended these efforts and suggested that Public Prosecutors should be encouraged to scrutinize final reports. It highlighted that an earlier judgment held that seeking the opinion of the Public Prosecutor before filing final reports was not mandatory for investigating officers. However, the court clarified that the judgment did not prohibit the placement of final reports before Public Prosecutors for a basic level of scrutiny.
The court emphasized that the investigating officer can choose to have the final reports scrutinized by Public Prosecutors. It further emphasized that Public Prosecutors should be given reasonable time to conduct such scrutiny when the reports are presented to them.
The Madras High Court stated that this procedure does not need to be followed in all cases but should be considered for serious crimes. It suggested that the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, issue a clarificatory circular to this effect.
The court also noted the need for a Digital Evidence Manual to ensure systematic procedures for handling electronic evidence in cases involving digital materials. It granted the Director General of Police four weeks to finalize this manual, emphasizing the importance of a meticulous approach rather than hasty implementation.
The court appreciated the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Director General of Police for their efforts in organizing the orientation program for Public Prosecutors and creating awareness regarding effective investigations and timely filing of final reports. These initiatives aim to enhance the quality of investigation and ensure adherence to prescribed timelines in the legal process.
Source: Link
Picture Source :
