Report No. 154
Separate Investigating Agency
The need to set up a separate investigating agency was expressed by His Lordship Mr. Justice Reddy. The participants were asked of their views on the above point and suggestions were furnished that due to other responsibilities the Investigating Officer cannot justify the investigation which he is required to perform. Stress was laid on the fact that the present investigation procedure is not adequate and, therefore, a separate investigating agency should be formulated. Most of the cases in the Courts were adjourned because of the fact that the investigating officer is not present in the Court.
Mr. R.C. Gupta, ADJ also recommended that the Investigating Officer must be trained and special remuneration should also be provided to them. The Agency should be separate for all the cases.
Mr. Dhingra suggests that the agency should be separate for all the cases. It should not be under the same police department, should be independent and independent from political interferences. Mr. Dayal, ADJ stresses that it should be controlled by the Directorate of Prosecution. Mr. B.N. Singh, Representative, Delhi Police suggested that separation alone may not help but other aspects have to be looked into.
The House agrees on the point that a separate investigating agency should be formulated and it should be governed by the Directorate of Prosecution which will be headed by a Director. The Director has to be from the judiciary. His Lordship Mr. Justice Reddy argued for the proper guidelines to be laid down showing the procedure of co-ordination between the police officers and the Director otherwise unwanted disputes may arise due to ego problems. Mr. Justice Reddy also talked about the detailed procedure of witness Act, how the statements are recorded and put to the courts and suggests the steps to eliminate the error concept etc.
Anticipatory Bail At the outset it is pointed out that there is no anticipatory bail in the State of Uttar Pradesh and as such the provision of anticipatory bail can be waived in the Capital also.
The consensus says that this provision should not go because the capital is housing most of the VIPs and other famous personalities for whom going to lockup itself is more than being jailed as a social stigma is attached to it. It was suggested that it should not go but it should be more liberalised. Misuse of sub-sections 1, 2, & 3 of section 458 should be stopped. The provisions of section 488 have to be retained with some improvements.
Most of the cases are adjourned because witnesses do not turn up as they come from far-flung areas. Proposal of giving protection to the witnesses was also forwarded.
Deletion of section 162, Cr. PC
It was finally decided that change in section 162, Cr. PC is required.
Ms. Neelam Grover said that trial courts must be empowered. Mr. Khanna, Mr. Malik, Ms. R.S. Nag, Mr. Sood all talked on the point and the House was unanimous for the compounding.
Vote of Thanks by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sarin.