Chandigarh, July 16
In an order expected to benefit “thousands” of litigants aggrieved by the failure of the prosecuting agency to probe criminal cases without delay in the states of Punjab and Haryana, besides the Union Territory of Chandigarh, Mr Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel of the Punjab and Haryana High Court today ordered the setting up of a review committee under the chairmanship of a Home Secretary within two weeks.
The directions are significant as in a large number of cases accused were being granted bail even in cases of heinous offences following the failure of the prosecuting agency to file the final report within the stipulated period. Punjab Public Service Commission’s suspended chairman Ravinderpal Singh Sidhu, too, was recently granted bail in two cases as the Vigilance Bureau had failed to submit the challan within 90 days.
Today, issuing the directions on a petition filed by a Hisar resident seeking directions for handing over to an independent agency the investigation of a case registered at Adampur police station under Section 304 of the IPC, Mr Justice Goel also directed that the committee — with the head of the investigating agency as one of the members — would look into the “speed of the investigation in light of the facts and figures”, besides “working of a mechanism for the redressal of grievances”, along with “working of the investigating agency at the lower level and its monitoring at the higher level” and areas requiring further review.
The Judge added that the committee may complete its study within six weeks and submit its report before October 28, the next date of hearing. In his detailed order, Mr Justice Goel observed: “It appears that the states of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh, are satisfied with the mechanism laid down in the police rules, but the actual working is, to the contrary, evident from thousands of petitions being filed in this court with a grievance that the investigation was not being completed for long periods or the grievances raised were not being considered at any forum”.
The Judge further observed: “There does appear to be need to evaluate the actual working of the statutory procedure and the monitoring mechanism in the light of facts and figures and feedback from those who operate the said mechanism. This is basically an executive function, but with regard to its effect on the fundamental right of life and liberty, the court cannot keep itself totally out. Counsel for UT, Punjab and Haryana have submitted that the government is keen on improving the system and take steps for speedy investigation as well as for strengthening the mechanism for redressal of grievances of the citizens”.
Mr Justice Goel concluded: “There is need for further study of the problem to ascertain the remedial steps. Let an evaluation or a review committee be constituted....”
Taking serious note of the delay in probing criminal cases, Mr Justice Goel, on the last date of hearing, had ruled that there was a definite need to develop and follow a “better mechanism for implementing the right to speedy investigation”. The Judge had also directed the filing of affidavits by officers not below the rank of secretaries for ascertaining the mechanism being followed in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh.
Mr Justice Goel had observed: “Section 173 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that investigation should be completed without delay. This section advances the objective of speedy investigation as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution. But it has been noticed that a grievance is being raised in a large number of cases about the delay in investigation. To redress such grievances, directions are being issued in individual cases fixing the time limit for completing investigation. This can be substituted by a better mechanism for implementing the right to speedy investigation by strengthening, monitoring and adhering to a schedule, for the completion of investigation, which may have been laid down or which may be laid down”.
The Judge had further observed: “Needless to say that there is a definite need for such a mechanism. There is also a need to have an in-house mechanism for redressing the grievances arising on account of apprehensions expressed by the victims regarding unfair and partial action of the investigating agencies. No doubt this court examines individual cases, but every one is not able to approach the court and by taking suitable steps unnecessary litigation can be avoided which would provide relief to the citizens as well as the state....”
