Common Perception That CBI's Success Rate Is Low : Supreme Court Asks CBI To Furnish Conviction Percentage

Observing that there was a common perception that the success rate taken on file was rather low, the Division Bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh directed the Director, CBI to file an affidavit within six weeks.

"There is common perception that the success rate over the cases taken on file is rather low. Thus, we call upon the petitioners to place the year wise data on the cases under prosecution, the time period over which they are pending before the trial courts and the percentage of conviction rendered by the courts at different level"

The bench also took note of the series of directions that were issued to Director, CBI by the division Bench of Madras High Court in Ramanathapuram District Pathikkapattor Sangam v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. seeking compliance. The Madras High Court had made several observations regarding the low success rate of the CBI and had passed directions to ensure independence and autonomy, saying it wanted to "release the caged parrot".

Observing that the Madras High Court order was passed in light of the factual particulars and remarking that it did not wish to say anything in the said order, the bench said that,

"We would like to know from the petitioners on the steps taken or proposed to be taken over the inadequacies in existence. Such inadequacies extend to the manpower, infrastructure facility and the quality of investigation."

The directions were passed against the backdrop of the special leave petition filed by Director, CBI assailing the judgment dated March 26, 2018 by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar in a case against Advocate(s) Mohammad Altaf Mohand and Sheikh Mubarak.

The case pertained to alleged fabrication/ creation false evidence by pressuring, inducing and threatening the eye witnesses to make false depositions implicating the police/ security personnel in the commission of offences of rape and murder of two women in Shopian.

Background

The Top Court on January 24, 2020 while perusing the application for condonation of delay which had sought to explain the inordinate delay of 542 days and taking note of the time period that took to take a decision to file an appeal by the CBI had sternly remarked that,

"The aforesaid prima facie shows clearly gross incompetence in the legal department of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) which raises serious questions of its efficacy to prosecute the cases."

It had also asked the Investigating Agency to file an affidavit within two weeks explaining all these delays.

After perusing the affidavit on February 7, 2020 the Top Court had remarked that the same appeared as a saga of gross negligence in performing duties.

"We fail to appreciate how the file remained pending for comments of the Deputy Legal Advisor in the office of Head of Branch from 9th May, 2018 to 19th January, 2019 i.e. no call being taken on this issue and the explanation given is that this Cell was handling over about 95 cases. Firstly, that number is not extraordinary and secondly, it is for the petitioner to take a call as to how many persons are required to manage their affairs. It appears that the file was also lying with the learned Additional Solicitor General for about two months," bench had observed.

Adding that it was unwilling to accept the scenario where repeatedly appeals/petitions were filed beyond time, the Court had directed the Director, CBI to file an affidavit within four weeks with regards to the steps that were being taken or have been take and what system it had put in place to facilitate proper functioning of prosecution of legal cases.

The Top Court had also noted that the post of Director (Prosecution) was also vacant for eight months and was only filled in recently.

Case Title: Central Bureau Of Investigation & Anr. v. Mohammad Altaf Mohand & Anr.| Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(S). 45871/2019

Click Here To Read/ Download Order