What ails central probe agencies?

Navneet Rajan Wasan

Retired Director-General, Bureau of Police Research & Development 

In  December 2017, the trial court acquitted all accused in three 2G related cases, investigated by the CBI. The court had some scathing remarks for the CBI, stating that it has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution had failed to prove any of its charges. Then, it was the turn of the NIA, when the trial court recently acquitted all accused in the Mecca Masjid case investigated initially by the state police, then by the CBI and later by the NIA. Both the CBI and the NIA, the premier investigation agencies of the country that are entrusted with cases of sensitive and complex nature, often impinging on the nation’s economic health and internal security, have been in the line of fire for their failure to bring culprits to justice. The Supreme Court had even called the CBI a "caged parrot" and said that an invisible hand handled its course of investigation. The NIA also has also had its share of criticism that  its investigation and prosecution was conducted on direction by the powers-that-be. 

No doubt, these judgments may not be final and higher courts may opine otherwise in appeals, a question arises as to what ails the efforts of these premier agencies that lead to the acquittal of accused in important cases. It calls for introspection and remedial measures because unlike the state police, these agencies handle a few cases, have multi-layered chains of supervision and are adequately supported by legal officers. 

A major reason for their failure in prosecution efforts is the overall decline in the standards of investigation. Investigation is a painstaking job, requires special skills and expertise, coupled with the knowledge of substantive and procedural law. The officers must continuously update their skills since criminals are becoming more adept in covering their tracks and do not leave evidence which would link them to the crime. 

The investigation assignment is no longer coveted within the police. The State Crime Investigation Department (CID) no longer gets the best of the police talent. The CBI, NIA and ED, which to a large extent are dependent for officers on the state police, have of late inducted officers from the Central Armed Police Forces to fill vacancies. These officers, having not been inducted and trained for investigation, often prove unequal to the challenge of handling complex investigation. 

The suggestion made to increase direct recruitment of officers is also not the ideal solution as they will not match the experience and field knowledge of the state police officers. The best remedy lies in working out a scheme with the states to get more officers on deputation from there, especially those with a penchant for investigation. This is also applicable to IPS officers inducted as supervisory officers. These agencies handle cases pertaining to state jurisdiction and they should have a legitimate interest in getting the accused convicted and, therefore, be a willing partner to such schemes.

The investigation of economic offences/ financial crimes requires indepth knowledge of the working of the financial world and its intricacies. The officers entrusted with terrorism-related offences must be exposed to a high level of forensic expertise, understand the intricacies of cyber space and be aware of the terrorist groups of various hues and shades. It may not be possible for a police officer to have all these skills. Therefore, the concept of team investigation needs to be introduced. It may comprise police investigator/s, experts drawn forensic accounting, explosives and other related scientific fields. The legal expert must also be an integral part of the team to assist the police investigator and others in ensuring that procedures are followed, and the quality of evidence maintained. Until such a system is brought in place, the investigations are bound to suffer. 

Most important, the officers manning these agencies must understand that they are answerable to the law and to none else as far as investigation and prosecution is concerned even though they may work under the general superintendence of the Central Vigilance Commission (for corruption related cases) or the government. They are not required to take orders or directions of any other person or entity during investigation or prosecution. The investigation must be thorough and done professionally, with an aim to bring the culprits to justice.  Therefore, if charge-sheets are filed based on shoddy investigation with no or inadequate evidence, the blame must be shared by the investigating and supervisory officers and they must suffer the consequences. The apex court in State of Gujarat Vs Kishanbhai etc. (Criminal Appeal No. 1485 of 2008) observed that "in the culmination of a criminal case in acquittal, the concerned investigating/prosecuting official(s) responsible for such acquittal must necessarily be identified. A finding needs to be recorded in each case, whether the lapse was innocent or blameworthy. Each erring officer must suffer the consequences of his lapse, by appropriate departmental action, whenever called for. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the matter, the concerned official may be withdrawn from investigative responsibilities, permanently or temporarily, depending purely on his culpability. We also feel compelled to require the adoption of some indispensable measures, which may reduce the malady suffered by parties on both sides of criminal litigation". One does not know whether these agencies have put in place any internal mechanism to deal with this situation.

No doubt, there are other factors like a long interval before trial commences in such cases and time taken for trial, which increases the chances of winning over witnesses. We have, therefore, to bring in place a system where the investigation is conducted in a fair and professional manner, finalised at the earliest and accused found culpable — charge-sheeted without any delay. The quality of prosecution has to be ensured and the trial completed in a short period, thereby reducing the possibility of witnesses being won over.

Views are personal