Madras HC Seeks Report From State On Lapses In Probing Criminal Cases, Delay In Prosecuting Offenders & Framing Witness Protection Scheme

Observing that the criminal justice system should repose confidence in the people, the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman noted that a 'serious action on a war footing basis' was required.

“If the Police authorities take more than a decade even to complete investigation, this Court is afraid when the trial will be concluded and the offenders will be punished. The criminal justice delivery system must repose confidence on the public, so as to ensure that offenders are punished through due process within a reasonable time. Enormous unexplained delays in completing the investigation, filing charge sheets, and conducting trials, under no circumstances, be approved by the High Court...This Court has come across many cases where investigations are pending for years together. Cases are not taken on file without any valid reason, and trials have been pending for years together. The Witness Protection Scheme, as contemplated under Section 398 of BNSS, is also to be framed by the Government to remove the fear from the minds of witnesses to speak truth before the Courts,” the court said.

Though the court was informed that a periodical review was being conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Commissioner of Police and other higher authorities, the court wondered what transpired in these review meetings and directed the DGP and the Principal Secretary, Home Department to monitor the same. The court added that the dereliction of duty on the part of investigating officers and other police officers in prosecuting offenders would in turn embolden the offenders to commit further offences. Thus, the court opined that the lackadaisical approach of the investigating officers or the reviewing authority had to be viewed seriously.

The court also opined that a dedicated investigation team comprising of efficient officers be constituted at the Taluk level, District level, and State level who can conduct investigations in complicated cases and also guide other police officers to conduct proper investigation by adopting technical and scientific procedures.

“Expertise in the matter of investigation is required in the present day situation as the offences being committed by some offenders are complex in nature. Therefore, appointment of dedicated teams at various levels to conduct investigation and monitor the investigation conducted by the Station house officer are of paramount importance,” the court said.

Pointing to judicial officers taking time in scrutinizing the final reports, the court observed that the judicial officers should be sensitized and scrutinize the charge sheet within a time-bound manner and take cognizance or initiate appropriate action by following the due procedure under the law.

The court noted that many criminal cases, are not taken on file, observing that the term “not taken on file” is unknown to the Criminal Procedure Code (BNSS). It said that as per Section 210 of BNSS, cognizance of offences by learned Magistrate is to be taken and under Section 213 cognizance of the offences must be by the Court of Sessions; hence the categorization of cases as “not taken on file” itself would be improper. "The procedures contemplated under law are to be followed scrupulously", it said.

The court also noted that the state had not taken steps to frame a Witness Protection Scheme which was provided for under Section 398 of the BNSS and directed the respondent authorities to submit a report on the same.

"The respondents 1 and 5 are directed to file an affidavit/report with reference to the above serious lapses in conducting investigation, prosecuting the offenders, and regarding framing of Witness Protection Scheme under Section 398 BNSS and other related aspects of the matter," the court said. 

The observations were made in a habeas corpus petition filed by one Gaja Lakshmi challenging the detention order passed against her husband. It was argued that there was a delay in passing the detention order which would prejudice the detenue and thus sought to quash the detention order.

The state on the other hand, submitted that the detenue had been classified as A+ category offender and was involved in 26 previous cases. The state also provided details of the cases registered against the detenue. The court expressed shock over the fact that some of the cases were registered in 2014 but were still under investigation, and thus went on to make the observations.

The case has been adjourned to 30^th January for the reports.

Case Title: Gaja Lakshmi v The State