The Madras High Court has sought a report from the State Government, Police and Prison Superintendent on issues surrounding serious lapses in conducting investigation, prosecuting the offenders, and regarding framing of the Witness Protection Scheme under Section 398 of the BNSS.

The Court was considering a Habeas Corpus Petition assailing the detention order on the ground that there was a delay in passing the same.

The Division Bench of Justice S. M. Subramaniam and Justice M. Jothiraman observed, "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 Petitioner was represented by Advocate T.Udayakumar while the Respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.R.Muniyapparaj.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there was a delay in passing the detention order, which caused prejudice to the detenue. On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the detenue is classified as A+ category offender and he has been involved in 26 previous cases.

The Court, at the outset, expressed shock at the fact the criminal cases registered under Section 302 IPC in the year 2016 and other criminal cases registered in the year 2014 and 2015 are still under investigation.

"Majority of the cases registered against this A+ category offender is under investigation. 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," the Court observed.

The Court took note of the fact that numerous criminal cases are pending and have not been taken on file, which requires reconciliation by the Investigating Officers concerned certain serious lapses on the part of the Police Authorities in pursuing the criminal cases are to be closely monitored by the higher authorities.

The Court also clarified that the term “not taken on file” is unknown to the Criminal Procedure Code (BNSS). "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. Therefore, the categorization of cases as “not taken on file” itself would be improper", the Court noted.

It directed the Director General of Police and the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department to monitor the periodical review conducted by the Superintendent of Police.

"These all are the serious lapses, dereliction of duty and negligence on the part of the Investigating Officers or the Police Officers concerned in prosecuting the offenders under the relevant criminal law. These serious lapses would, in the opinion of this Court, undoubtedly embolden the offenders to commit further offences. Therefore, serious action on a war footing basis is required. Any lackadaisical approach by the Investigating Officer or the reviewing authority at the district level should be viewed seriously by the Director General of Police and the Government, so as to ensure confidence of the citizen on the criminal justice delivery system," the Court said.

The Court pointed out that it 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 and 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. It cited the necessity for the constitution of dedicated investigation teams consisting of efficient police officials at Taluk level, District level and State level, who will conduct investigations in complicated cases and guide the other police officers for conducting proper investigations by adopting technical and scientific procedure.

"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. This aspect is also to be looked into by the Government and the Director General of Police," the Court emphasized.

With respect to the issue of Jurisdictional Courts taking time for scrutinizing the final report and the documents filed along with it, the Court asserted that they are expected to dedicate time for completing this work, since the delay is causing great prejudice to the criminal law delivery system in the State.

"In this regard, the Judicial officers are to be sensitized, and to scrutinize the charge sheet in a time bound manner and take cognizance or initiate all appropriate actions by following the due procedures as contemplated under law.......In the event of any lapses on the part of the Judicial Officers in scrutinizing the final report filed or in the event of enormous delay, the Police Department may bring it to the notice of such delay either to the learned Principal District Judge concerned or to the High Court as the case may be for initiation of all further actions to ensure that the process are expedited," the Court held.

Cause Title: Gaja Lakshmi vs. The State Rep By, State Of Tamil Nadu

Click here to read/ download Order