All that it took this newspaper to meet Vi-render Prasad, the ``missing witness'' in the sensational Priyadarshini Mattoo case was a visit to the man's native village in Bihar's Siwan district. The Central Bureau of Investigation, the premier investigating agency of the country, could not locate him all these months and his crucial evidence could not, therefore, be presented to the court.The CBI's failure, coupled with its other criminal lapses, led to the acquittal of the accused, Santosh Singh, although the judge was personally convinced about his guilt. It was, perhaps, for the first time that a judge had been constrained to acquit an accused even when it defied his own personal sense of justice. The judgment picked holes in the CBI investigations, which when juxtaposed with The Indian Express's follow-up reports, seemed to indicate that the intention of the investigators was to let the guilty off the hook, rather than bring him to book. Needless to say, all this has brought the CBI under a cloud. Whatis at stake is its credibility, which is the summum bonumr of any investigative agency worth its salt. Thus the challenge facing the CBI today is to retrieve its lost honour and reestablish itself as an impartial body that will not wilt under pressure, from within or without. Central to this task is an inquiry into the conduct of those who had brought the CBI to such a pass.Since time is of the essence in such matters, the earlier the CBI resorts to restorative measures the better. In this context, CBI director R.K. Raghav-an's statement that the agency has an open mind on the question of reopening the case is indeed welcome, but whether he should take six months to arrive at such decision, as he indicated on Wednesday, is another question. Reopening the case would in public perception imply a setback for the CBI but it is a far better option than it remaining impervious to the implications of the present controversy, a stance which could seriously jeopardise its reputation. There have been instances whencases decided by the court were reopened. When the Supreme Court itself has shown a readiness to review decisions it had taken in the past, there is no reason why the CBI should be hesitant in doing likewise.From the available evidence and court rulings, it is not difficult to fix responsibility for the CBI's la-pses. Obviously, all this was done with a view to helping the ward of a fellow officer and to allow the investigators to go scot free would be a travesty of justice. It is unfortunate that at a time when the conviction rate in criminal cases is abysmally low, the investigators are neither rewarded nor punished for their successes or failures, as the case may be. Con-sequently, there is no personal stake for the investigators in such cases. This needs to be corrected so that those who investigate criminal cases put their total commitment into their work. But for the present, an early reopening of the case is a must to restore people's faith in the criminal justice system in the country. Thiscannot be overemphasised, more so when the CBI will soon be pursuing such important cases as the one on the purchase of the Bofors gun.
