Chandigarh, December 6
The Punjab and Haryana High Court today rapped Punjab and Haryana, along with the Union Territory of Chandigarh, for not conducting up to expectation investigation in cases registered against the sitting and former MPs and MLAs.
Not much Progress
The progress sought to be projected in the affidavits placed before the court was not up to the expectation and the assurance by the counsel representing the investigating agencies. HC Bench
The Bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Vikram Aggarwal also asked the Directors-General of Police, Haryana, Punjab and Chandigarh, apart from the directors of the investigating agencies, to file affidavits. They were asked to spell out the steps being taken.
Directions were also issued for specifying the progress made, if any, not only to expedite the investigation process and the inclusion of scientific methods, but also for expediting the trial and ensuring the appearance of officials and other prosecution witnesses. For the purpose, the Bench set a four-week deadline.
The directions came as the Punjab Bureau of Investigation told the Bench that 102 cases against the lawmakers – incumbent and former – were pending trial in the courts, besides investigation in 19 FIRs was pending against them.
The Bench asserted the progress sought to be projected in the affidavits placed before the court was not up to the expectation and the assurance by the counsel representing the investigating agencies and the states. The intent and purpose for which the monitoring was being carried out by the court was not only “lacking, but missing”.
The Bench added something was required to be done as far as the investigation of the matters was concerned. “After the completion of the investigation, it appears that the prosecution virtually is shaking of its hands as the focus on the status reports appears to be limited up to the extent of completion of investigation,” the Bench asserted.
It added non-appearance of the witnesses was a major cause of delay in the trial. As such, the Directors-General of Police and the heads of the departments of the investigating agencies were expected to give equal thought and importance to the trial as well. The officials and witnesses when called were required to be bound down to appear, giving it a priority over other duties and responsibilities they had to perform.
The Bench added delaying the trial resulted in loss of public and the court’s time. It also at times gave an opportunity to the accused to win-over the witnesses. It might be a cause of concern as the process of investigation, if completed with sincerity, lost its relevance when the cases were to be tried. Even the accused had to suffer because of delay as he continued to have the stigma till the final order was passed, convicting or acquitting him. The case will now come up for further hearing on January 19.
Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium
Take your experience further with Premium access.
Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Already a Member? Sign In Now