Criminal cases: Govt for speedy trial

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, April 24

The Punjab Government has issued instructions aimed at reducing the delay in wrapping up criminal trials due to the prosecution’s failure to produce witnesses before subordinate courts.

The Home Secretary has shot off a communiqué to the Director, Bureau of Investigation, to “ensure that the delays in trial do not occur for want of service and production of prosecution witnesses.”

About six years ago, the government had come out with the Punjab State Litigation Policy. According to the policy, the summoning of official witnesses is required to be monitored by a DSP. The supervisory role in the matter is that of the DIG (Crime).

The Home Secretary’s instructions follow the intervention by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a criminal case. Justice Deepak Sibal of the High Court had recently taken cognisance of a case, where the trial had been adjourned on 34 occasions for want of prosecution witnesses. On no less than 18 dates, adjournments had been granted following the non-appearance of the investigation officer.

The case came to Justice Sibal’s notice after a second regular bail petition was filed by an accused in a case registered in March 2014 under Sections 302 (murder), 449, 379 and 34 of the IPC at Balianwali police station in Bathinda district.

Justice Sibal had directed the Director, Prosecution, to spell out the steps the government intended to take for preventing such delay in future. In pursuance of the directions, an affidavit was placed before the Bench. Filed by the Director, Prosecution and Litigation, it carried details of the policy and the information on the Home Secretary’s communication.

Taking the affidavit on record, Justice Sibal has now asked the state to apprise the court “whether on account of delays in trial, any explanation of any official had ever been sought in pursuance of the 2011 policy, as also whether the instructions dated March 29 have been brought to the notice of all concerned.”

HC intervention did the trick  

• The Home Secretary’s instructions follow the intervention by the High Court in a criminal case
• Justice Deepak Sibal of the High Court had recently taken cognisance of a case, where the trial had been adjourned on 34 occasions for want of prosecution witnesses
• On no less than 18 dates, adjournments had been granted following the non-appearance of the investigation officer