HC summons Punjab DGP (Law & Order) over repeated absence of investigating officers in court
The court had repeatedly noticed investigating officers either failing to appear despite directions or attending the hearings without the case diary and adequate preparation, Justice Sumeet Goel asserted
Admonishing the recurring failure of investigating officers to appear before the court or assist the prosecution effectively, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the personal presence of Punjab Director-General of Police (Law & Order).
Justice Sumeet Goel asserted the court had repeatedly noticed investigating officers either failing to appear despite directions or attending the hearings without the case diary and adequate preparation, leaving the State counsel unable to assist the court effectively.
“It has been noticed, time and again, that on the dates fixed for hearing, the investigating officers either failed to appear before this court or appear without being adequately prepared with the case diary and the relevant factual milieu. In such circumstances, they indubitably remain unable to effectively assist the learned State counsel during the course of hearing,” the High Court observed.
Justice Goel added such a situation not only undermined the efficiency of prosecution but also placed the court in difficulty by depriving it of the factual assistance necessary for adjudication. “This state of affairs not only undermines the efficiency of the prosecution but also places the court in a quandary, as it is deprived of the necessary factual assistance which is indispensable for a fair and informed adjudication of the lis,” Justice Goel added.
The Bench made it clear that the role of the State counsel went beyond representing the prosecution and involved assisting the court in the administration of justice. “A State counsel is an officer of the court whose paramount duty is to assist the Court in administration of justice. The prosecuting counsel is expected to act as a bridge between the investigative machinery and the judicial forum, ensuring that the court is apprised of the correct factual position and relevant legal proposition,” Justice Goel asserted.
The Bench, at the same time, added such assistance became “illusory” when the investigating officer — custodian of the case diary and the pivot of the investigation — failed to appear or remained ill-prepared. “The inevitable result is that the court is either compelled to proceed without the benefit of full and proper assistance, or to further adjourn the case which results in the wasting of precious judicial time. This is a malady which appears to be emerging more often than not before this Court,” Justice Goel added.
The direction came in a case where the investigating officer failed to appear despite a previous order dated February 24 directing him to remain present in court with the case diary. The State counsel informed the court that the officer had not appeared and no tangible reason had been shown for the absence.
Taking a serious view of the lapse, Justice Sumeet Goel observed: “Ergo, the court is left with no option but to direct personal presence of the Director-General of Police (Law & Order), Punjab, before this Court on the next date of hearing.” The case has been listed for further hearing on March 16.
