Dr. Upendra Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar

Dr. Upendra Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar

27. If we could go back further into the history, we could find that the Central Bureau of Investigation was created to investigate corruption cases by virtue of being vested with the powers to investigate the cases as per Sections 5 and 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. With democracy being established and political ambitions and conflicting political or other interests getting a rise, instances of commission of serious offences, like murder or even kidnapping, etc., surfaced, which had some political overtures. Some of the offences were found committed by professional gang of criminals making it extremely difficult for the general police force of a State to investigate such complex offences. In the above background, the provision was made that on proposals being submitted by any State Government and Central government having accepted such proposals, investigation of such complex cases might be made by the Central Bureau of Investigation. This is how the offences other than of corruption were also added up into the kitty of the Central Bureau of Investigation for its investigation ( Please see Lalan Prasad Singh Vs. Union of India reported in 2011(1) B.B.C.J. 41).

30. However, the amendments incorporated in 1988 into the Prevention of Corruption Act did not altogether change the trial procedure which was almost the same as could be applicable to trial of a warrant case and that could be one of the reasons that the pendency of corruption cases remained a bit on the higher side. It could be appreciated if the following table is considered:

Name of Total pending Year wise particulars of pending cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

31. It may be found from the above table that Special Courts for trial of corruption cases have been established only in two Judgeships out of a total number of thirty Judgeships and those are, Patna and Muzaffarpur and the total number of 2922 cases were pending up to December, 2010, which are to be tried by the Special Courts created for trying the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, ranging from 2000 to 2010 which figure included 646 and 625 such cases of years prior to 2000 which were pending in different courts of Bihar. There are several instances which could be had from the Registry of this Court, indicating that the witnesses in spite of appearing before the Special Courts were not examined and they had to go back to their respective places of posting. One hardly requires to point out that the witnesses cited in the charge sheet by the investigating agency in such cases are all public servants who are posted in different corners of the State and they go back without deposing in courts.. There was no timeframe anywhere in the above Act for trial of the cases. Corruption is a prime problem of our democracy which is eating up its fabric and it is destroying the foundation upon which the edifice of our democracy was fabricated. A handful of persons, who may be politicians or bureaucrats, are eating up the plan money which are to be invested in execution of any developmental or socially beneficial schemes. As such, even the serious attempts on tackling the problem by framing drastic legislation could not be effective. Even the provision of forfeiture of the property by attaching it under the Ordinance of 1944 was tardy as the petition which was to be filed either by the Central Government or by the State Government under the Ordinance was to be tried by an Officer of the rank of District Judge as a suit and he was required to take evidence both in support as also in the rebuttal of the contents of the petition.

35. It is further indicted by Sub-section(2) to Section 11 of the Act that Special Court has to make all endeavours to dispose of the trial of the case within a period of one year from the date of its institution or transfer, as the case may be. Thus, there is clear departure from the general procedures regarding the trial of a warrant case as contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure as the same does not bind any court with any particular time frame in trying warrant cases. At the same time the procedure for trial of warrant case could not be that of a summary trial. In my considered view, the summary procedure of trial as is envisaged by Rule 12 could not be for a period longer than one year as indicated by Section -11(2 )of the Act, else, the provisions of Section 11 and Rule 12 may run counter to each other and make the time frame impracticable. Further, the conflict which appears in between Section 11 of the Act and rule-12 of the Rules may be reconciled by pointing out that the legislature had recognized the delay which has beset the trials of corruption cases, as may appear from the Preamble to the Act and while adopting the procedure of Chapter XIX of the Cr. P.C. for trial of such cases, the legislature was indeed stipulating the summary procedure by confining the trial of such cases within the time frame of one year as per Section 11(2) of the Act. In fact, the conflicting situation created by Section 11(2) and Rule 12 could best be resolved by pointing out that while the procedure has always to be that for a warrant trial, it has to be summary or abridged in point of time by being attempted to be concluded in a year as per Section 11(2) of the Act. In case the trial spills over a period exceeding one year, it could not have any adverse impact on it, nor it could create a right in any party to escape the trial. But, in such an eventuality sturdy reasons have to be assigned by the trial Judge. Similarly, de novo trial has been done away with by Section 12 of the Act and the appellate forum has been prescribed by Section 9 of the said Act. These are the provisions in respect of the trial of cases which, as I have just pointed out, appear in Chapter II.