Report No. 14
Criminal Law and Procedure
168. To what causes, in general, do you attribute the delays in the investigation of offences? What remedies do you advocate to minimise such delays?
169. Are the delays in the enquiries into, and the trial of, cognizable offences, due to?
(i) insufficient number of courts and prosecuting officers,
(ii) inability of the Police to produce their witnesses on the due dates?
170. To what causes do you attribute the prosecution's failure to produce their witnesses and what remedies do you suggest for eliminating such delays?
171. Is the practice of entrusting police officers with the duties of prosecution still prevalent in your State? Should not the prosecuting officers he selected from the legal profession?
172. What is your opinion on the proposal to issue pre-trial summonses in petty offences, stating the nature of the offences and the fine to be imposed and giving the accused the option to plead guilty by registered letter and to remit the amount of fine?
173. What measures do you suggest for ensuring that the Police get the help of respectable persons for making panchnamas?
174. Is it necessary to maintain the difference in the procedure relating to trial of summons and warrant cases?
175. What reforms do you suggest in the procedure relating to summary trials? Are you in favour of enlarging the list of offences triable summarily?
176. Would you agree that in summary trials the procedure prescribed for summons cases alone should be followed and warrant procedure omitted?
177. Is there any necessity to retain committal proceedings in any form?
178. Would you agree to the proposal that the procedure in section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code should not be made applicable to complaints under sections 196, 196A, 197 or 476 of the Code?
179. Should not the provision in section 256 of the Code allowing the accused at the commencement of the next hearing of the case to state the names of prosecution witnesses he wishes to cross-examine be omitted, and the accused asked to state forthwith the names of such witnesses?
180. Is there any objection to the procedure under section 251A of the Code to be made applicable to complaints under section 476?
181. Are you in favour of a provision that objections on the ground of want of sanction, misjoinder of charges etc., should be taken at the earliest opportunity and should not be permitted on appeal unless they have been taken in the court of the first instance?
182. Have you any suggestions to make in regard to the provisions as to the framing and under of charges in the Code of Criminal Procedure with a view to secure a simpler set of rules, avoidance of pleas based on technicality and a larger discretion in the Court?
183. Are you in favour of retention of Honorary Magistrates of any class, exercising judicial functions?
184. Are you in favour of enlarging the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judges so as to enable them to pass final orders instead of making a reference to the High Court? If so, to what extent?
185. Is it necessary to retain the proviso to section 366 of the Code requiring the presiding judge to read out the whole judgment on the request of the prosecution or the defence?
186. Do you recommend the extension of the scope of section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to all criminal appellate and revisional courts, to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice?
187. What amendments do you suggest to section 27 of the Evidence Act to remove the difficulties in its use and interpretation?
188. Do you think that the prescribing of a minimum sentence of imprisonment for offences under several special Acts is sound in principle? Should not the law lay down the maximum penalty leaving it to the Court's discretion to determine the quantum of punishment in each case?
189. Are you in favour of making any amendments in Schedule II of the Code of Criminal Procedure so as to exclude certain offences from the list of those exclusively triable by the Court of Session?
190. What is your opinion on the working of the system of trial by Jury in your State? Do you advocate its continuance or abolition? Please give your reasons.
191. To what extent, if any, would you liberalise the provisions relating to compensation and restitution? (Sections 250, 517, 545, 546A and 553 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
192. Are you in favour of relaxation of the rule of presumption of innocence of the accused in any case? If so, in what class of cases and to what extent?
193. Do you agree that the provisions in sub-section (2) of section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confer an unqualified privilege upon the prosecution and the accused to summon the chemical examiner and other officials mentioned therein and that they are likely to cause unreasonable delay in the disposal of Criminal trials?