Panel to take ‘erring’ prosecutors to task

The committee on the district level would comprise the superintendent of police, police inspector (local crime branch) and an assistant public prosecutor.
The committees which are slated to meet every three months have been mandated to review all the cases where the court has ruled against the prosecution. The committee would also suggest action if lapses come to light in its findings.

The decision by the state government has come after the Supreme Court, ruling in the Gujarat vs Kishanbhai case, issued directives for individual state governments to increase the efficiency of the system of public prosecution.

The SC had said, “We direct the home department of every state government to formulate a procedure for taking action against all erring investigating and prosecuting officers. All such erring officers identified as responsible for failure of a prosecution case, on account of sheer negligence or because of culpable lapses, must face departmental action. The above mechanism formulated would infuse seriousness in the performance of investigating and prosecuting duties, and would ensure that investigation and prosecution are purposeful and decisive. The instant direction shall also be given effect to within six months.”
Within six months of the SC directive the state government had started taking steps towards ensuring efficient public prosecution.

Special public prosecutor Ujwal Nikam, who has fought several high profile cases for Maharashtra, said, “This a positive step. It would ensure due diligence on the part of both the investigating agency and the prosecution. The role of investigating agency is not limited to just arresting the alleged offender but also to collect evidence and file chargesheet. The further trial is responsibility of public prosecutor. The step by the state government would put a check on both these elements.”

Retired IPS officer Suresh Khopde however, expressed his doubts about the formation of a committee to review the lost cases. He said, “Unless we have mechanism to reduce the delays in the trials, there would be no improvement in the prosecution of the offenders. We have several examples in which the delays have led to weakening of the cases.”