It is most reassuring to note that the Karnataka High Court has as recently as on May 17, 2022 in an extremely commendable, courageous, cogent and composed judgment titled Sujit s/o Madiwalappa Mulgund v. The Superintendent of Police in Case No.: WP 15144/2021 and cited in 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 174 has issued general directions for speedy completion of probe or investigations in criminal matters. A single Judge Bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav in its interim order has said that, There is a requirement to pass directions for speedy conclusion of investigation, that may be applicable to the matters in general. The Court has also fixed a time frame of 60 days and 90 days respectively for completion of investigation in petty offences and the serious/heinous offences by the police and other investigating agencies in the State. However, the High Court made it clear that the trial courts could extend the period on request made by the police by assigning reasons for extension of time for completing the investigation.

For esteemed readers exclusive benefit, it must be disclosed here that the Karnataka High Court issued the directions while laying down elaborative guidelines for speedy investigation after taking serious note of non-completion of investigation by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in a case filed against Belagavi South MLA Abhaykumar Patil in 2012 for allegedly possessing assets that were disproportionate to his known sources of income. It also must be noted that the High Court directed the Special Court and the investigating agency to adhere to the mandate of the witness protection scheme laid down by the Apex Court as the complainant named Sujit had written to the Chief Justice of the High Court in 2019 alleging that he was being threatened with dire consequences and was being relentlessly pressurised by the henchmen of the MLA to withdraw the complaint. Very rightly so!

It also deserves mentioning here that Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav had issued the guidelines in the interim order passed on May 17 on the two petitions, one that was filed by Mr Patil questioning the 2017 order passed by a special court registration of an FIR and conducting investigation against him and another by Mr Sujit seeking direction to the ACB to complete probe and submit the final report. The Court issued these extremely commendable directions after hearing senior advocate Sandesh Chouta who was appointed by the Court as amicus curiae on the issues that are hindering the speedy probe in criminal cases and remedial measures required to be taken by the government, the courts and the police. These guidelines definitely must be implemented at the earliest as it brooks no more delay now.

Guidelines for speedy Investigation:

1. Offences may be categorized into (a) petty offences (b) serious offences and (c) heinous offences.

As regards petty offences, time limit of 60 days could be fixed for completion of investigation which could be extended by the Special Judge/Magistrate upon request made, assigning reasons for extension of time for investigation to be completed.

As regards serious and heinous offences, time limit of 90 days could be stipulated with provision to extend such time period upon request by the Special Judge / Magistrate upon reasons being made out. Such an intervention may be necessary in light of the approach of the Apex Court in the case of Abdul Rehman Antulay and Others v. R S Nayak and Another reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225 where Guidelines were laid down for speedy trial of criminal proceedings. The relevant extract is as follows:

86. …

(2) Right to Speedy Trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. That is how, this Court has understood this right and there is no reason to take a restricted view.

(3) The concerns underlying the Right to speedy trial from the point of view of the accused are :

(a) the period of remand and pre-conviction detention should be as short as possible. In other words, the accused should not be subjected to unnecessary or unduly long incarceration prior to his conviction;

(b) the worry, anxiety, expense and disturbance to his vocation and peace, resulting from an unduly prolonged investigation, inquiry or trial should be minimal; and …

ii) In the event the investigation is not completed within the time prescribed and the superior officer is of the opinion that there are no justifiable reasons for completion of the investigation, power can be exercised under Section 36 of Cr.P.C. by the Superior Officer.

iii) The Magistrate/Special Judge can invoke power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to ensure investigation is expeditious and pass appropriate directions where the investigation appears to be procrastinated to the prejudice of the complainant and would have the effect of derailing the investigation. The Magistrate can upon application filed or otherwise seek report from the concerned authority as regards delay in investigation. (See Paras-11, 17 and 24 in Sakiri Vasu case (supra) and Om Prakash Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in ILR 2021 MP 984, Paras11 and 11.2).

iv) Where grievance relates to non-registration of first information report and application under 156(3) has been filed, same may be disposed off within a period preferably not exceeding thirty days as relief sought for itself is relating to non-registration of FIR.

v) The Magistrate at the stage of extension of remand under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. could enquire regarding stage of Investigation.

vi) Many a time the prosecutor is required to take a call on need for examination of multiple witnesses. Once any one witness is examined on a particular aspect and if the evidence is clear and not shaky, the summoning of additional witnesses is to be avoided, as summoning multiple witnesses to speak on the same aspect results in prolonging trial and gives room to the defence to exploit contradictions amongst witnesses speaking on the same aspect.

vii) Setting up separate investigation wing with dedicated personnel in police stations with necessary training imparted so as to inculcate professionalism in investigation.

viii) Personnel involved may be subjected to training relating to modus operandi in commission of crime, strategies of unearthing crimes and their detection, and steps to be taken to familiarize them with necessary knowledge relating to technology involved in commission of cyber crimes, money laundering and corruption offences.

ix) In the event of failure to complete investigation in an expeditious manner provisions under Section 20(C) and 20(D) of the Karnataka Police Act can be invoked and a complaint could be made to the State and District Police Complaint Authority. In fact, delay in completing investigation can be a ground to invoke Section 20(C) in terms of the Explanation to Section 20(C)(7). This would ensure accountability of the investigating officers.

x) The delay in investigation and consequent delay in trial, places the complainant as well as the witnesses in a vulnerable position and the protection mechanism requires to be evolved.

xi) Necessary efforts for bifurcation of law and order, and crime investigation as regards personnel needs to be implemented.

xii) In order to overcome fear and reluctance on the part of public to be arraigned as witnesses, steps must be taken to implement the Witness Protection Scheme. The Apex Court has approved the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 in the case of Mahender Chawla (supra), at para-26, the Apex Court has referred to the Witness Protection Scheme in which the following protection measures are given to the witnesses under the scheme:

7. Types of protection measures: The witness protection measures ordered shall be proportionate to the threat and shall be for a specific duration not exceeding three months at a time. These may include:

(a) Ensuring that witness and accused do not come face to face during investigation or trial;

(b) Monitoring of mail and telephone calls;

(c) Arrangement with the telephone company to change the witness’s telephone number or assign him or her an unlisted telephone number;

(d) Installation of security devices in the witness’s home such as security doors, CCTV, alarms, fencing etc;

(e) Concealment of identity of the witness by referring to him/her with the changed name or alphabet;

(f) Emergency contact persons for the witness;

(g) Close protection, regular patrolling around the witness’s house;

(h) Temporary change of residence to a relative’s house or a nearby town;

(i) Escort to and from the court and provision of Government vehicle or a State funded conveyance for the date of hearing;

(j) Holding of in-camera trials;

(k) Allowing a support person to remain present during recording of statement and deposition;

(l) Usage of specially designed vulnerable witness court rooms which have special arrangements like live video links, one way mirrors and screens apart from separate passages for witnesses and accused, with option to modify the image of face of the witness and to modify the audio feed of the witness’ voice, so that he/she is not identifiable;

(m) Ensuring expeditious recording of deposition during trial on a day to day basis without adjournments;

(n) Awarding time to time periodical financial aids/grants to the witness from Witness Protection Fund for the purpose of re-location, sustenance or starting a new vocation/profession, as may be considered necessary;

(o) Any other form of protection measures considered necessary.

xiii) Necessary mechanism needs to be designed to implement the mandate of Order No.1550, 1550 (2), 1551 (2) and (3) of the Karnataka Police Manual.

xiv) The Authorities concerned may consider having provisions for the purpose of speedy and effective investigation by framing Regulations in lines of Police Regulations Bengal, 1943 which are as follows:-

54. Supervision of criminal investigations. [§ 12, Act V, 1861]. – (a) An officer supervising the investigation of a criminal case should satisfy himself that –

(i) the investigation is being pushed through without delay ;

(ii) the investigation is thorough, i.e., that clues are not overlooked or important lines of enquiry neglected;

(iii) investigating officers do not work mainly for confessions or rely too much on any that are made, and that they use no sort of pressure and offer no sort of inducement to obtain confessions;

(iv) the subordinate police are working honestly;

(v) the public are properly treated ; and

(vi) the prescribed procedure is followed.

(b) He shall on no account put pressure on investigating officers by injunctions to detect particular case or cases generally.

(c) The methods to be adopted by supervising officers are-

(i) visits to the place of occurrence at various stages of the investigation and personal examination, if necessary, of witnesses;

(ii) careful scrutiny of case diaries and other papers connected with the investigation; and

(iii) examination of crime registers and other records at the police-stations.

(d) When a supervising officer discovers mistakes or omissions on the part of an investigating officer, he should point them out to him and should not call for a written explanation unless it appears likely to be necessary to inflict punishment.

(e) A Superintendent, an Assistant or a Deputy Superintendent, and (for his own circle only) a Circle Inspector have power to order an officer attached to any police-station to investigate a case that, under section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should be investigated by the officer-in-charge; of another police-station; but the power should be exercised sparingly and its exercise by an officer subordinate to a Superintendent should at once be reported to the Superintendent.

55. Supervision by Superintendents and other officers. [§ 12, Act V, 1861]. –

(a) A Superintendent shall supervise the investigation of Important special report cases and of all cases in which the conduct of subordinate police officers appears unsatisfactory. If, for special reasons, he is unable himself to supervise the investigation of any such case, he may depute an Assistant or Deputy Superintendent to do so.

(b) A Superintendent, Assistant or Deputy Superintendent who is supervising a case need not visit the place of occurrence unless such visit is likely to be of practical value.

(c) A Circle Inspector shall supervise every case within his circle, and he shall visit the place of occurrence and test the evidence in every such case that is of importance. In selecting cases for testing on the spot he should direct his attention particularly to cases of house-breaking, riot and grievous hurt and to other cases which have been reported as false or non-cognizable.

56. Supervising officers to give evidence, and to keep diaries. [§ 12, Act V, 1861].

(a) Officers who have supervised investigations of important cases should be encouraged to give evidence in Court regarding any important facts which have come to their notice during the investigations.

(b) An officer supervising an investigation shall keep a personal diary in the form prescribed for Inspectors in regulation 197 and shall note in the manner in which he supervised the investigation, any questions which he has put to a witness, any identification which took place in his presence and any other matters on which he may need to refresh his memory before giving evidence. This diary shall be kept in the officers’ personal custody.

(c) An officer who, while supervising a case, has himself taken part in an investigation shall, under section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, keep a case diary showing where and at what times he made the investigation. Only fresh developments which may take place during supervision should be noted in a case diary by the superior officer. It should also include any specific orders given by him. This diary shall form part of the main case diaries submitted by the Investigating Officer of the case.

xv) In cases involving influential public personalities, resort to Section 164 Cr.P.C., should be made more frequently.

xvi) While investigation of offences under the provisions of Cr.P.C. is the exclusive domain of the police, the Judicial Magistrate should have role to play to counter the moves of persons in influential positions to subvert the effective process of investigation. Accordingly, the I.O. shall bring to the notice of Magistrate the bottlenecks, if any, that are coming in the way of speedy investigation including the attempts being made by the accused to hinder the investigation. The Magistrate shall, apart from taking such steps as are permissible under law, for example, issuing summons for the production of documents in the custody of suspect/accused/or a third party, may also send a report to the District Judge for appropriate action on the administrative side to eliminate delays.

xvii) The State is required to take steps for the implementation of the Witness Protection Scheme in terms of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Chawla and Others (supra) as well as the direction in the order dated 01.12.2020 passed in W.P.No.10240/2020 which is a suo motu writ petition pending before this court. Further, the Judicial Officers are also required to take note of the mandate of the directions of the order dated 01.12.2020.

No doubt, it is these remarkable guidelines as are exhaustively narrated above which forms the bedrock of this brief, brilliant, balanced and bold judgment and distinguishes it from the rest of the case laws. They must be definitely implemented at the earliest in totality. This alone will definitely ensure that criminal cases are strictly disposed of within a fixed time limit without being subjected to unnecessary delays and it is the undertrials who will stand to gain the most in this whole process! So it definitely brooks no more delay any longer! No denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi (Retd), A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh