Conviction rate in ACB cases in Maharashtra has dwindled to 18% in 2019. This in 82% cases, the culprits go scot free endangering the democratic rights of honest citizens. It also amounts to colossal waste of resources and time of the State. At all India level, Maharashtra has remained on the top in registering cases against the corrupt, but in convicting the culprits, its performance is far from satisfactory. Not only officers from the ACB but everyone interested in promoting democratic human rights of citizens and associated with criminal justice system needs to pay serious attention to improve the conviction rate against corrupt public servants.
On the other hand in Gujrat conviction rate against corrupt s above 40%.. There are many other States whose performance is better than Maharashtra. It’s therefore proposed to address this issue in following lines. Effective steps need to be ensured at various levels including complainants, witnesses, investigating officers, FSL officers, sanctioning authorities, prosecutors, and judicial officers . Separately measures also need to be taken at departmental level through Departmental Enquiry. On the basis of my experience as DG ACB, I propose to explain these as under.
* Complainants: After the successful trap , complainants are worried about their work in government office. ACB investigation officer needs to look at the complainant’s work as if of his own and follow it up with the concerned Govt office till it is completed Writing a letter to this effect to Officer in charge of that department is very effective. This would create confidence in the mind of the complainant about the trustworthiness of ACB. Secondly to ensure complainants do not come under pressure from perpetrators and their colleagues, it is necessary to organise a meeting with these complainants from time to time and boost up their morale till the case stands in court. Thirdly before the case comes up in the court, there should be a rehearsal to refresh the complainant’s memory about actual happenings and various actions taken before and at the time of the trap.
* Witnesses: These are government servants. They should be less than 45 years old when called for trap . In cases where they turn hostile , concerned departments should be asked to initiate action against them.
* Investigating Officers: Training at the time of induction as well as refresher training in identifying complainants, procedures, using new gadgets and technology is essential. Mostly when the cases come up before the court, the investigating officers get transferred out. It is necessary that they are invariably released and attend these cases in court promptly. Incentives should be given to officers who successfully complete investigation which ends in conviction .
* FSL officers: Expert opinion particularly in voice samples by FSL officers is necessary. If delayed that seriously hampers prosecution. Trained staff with adequate technology needs to be made available. These should be regular employees and not contractual workers else they would not be available when needed in courts for evidence .
* Sanctioning authorities: when investigation reports are received by sanctioning authorities they should satisfy themselves whether there is prima facile case and not waste time in scrutiny which would be done by judicial officers. In fact the sanctions should be provided within maximum two months . Many of these officers give evidence by video conferencing to the court . However quality of these videos is quite poor which results in acquittal. The same needs to be improved.
* Prosecutors: Lack of interest by prosecutors is a major hassle in preventing convictions. Training needs to be organised for prosecutors at least once in six months so that they are able to appreciate the technological innovations in investigation and project these effectively .
* Judicial officers: Though Hon High Court has directed ADDL District Judges declared as special judges to complete at least five ACB cases , these are hardly implemented. This results in inordinate delays ending cases in acquittal. Training course are also necessary for judicial officers at district levels to enable them to be aware about new judgments by Hon Supreme Court and Hon High Courts. Technological innovations also need to brought to their notice so that they can appreciate these. Instances where judicial officers keep on acquitting the accused need to be brought to the notice of Hon. Chief Justice of the High Court by personal meeting once in a month .
* Immediately after the traps, departmental proceedings need to be initiated for administrative lapses and completed expeditiously. After conviction , it is necessary to weed out these convicts after issuing written notice to the convicts.
In addition to above it would be desirable that each case is scrutinised by legal interns to be associated from nearby Law College. Defects in investigation can be removed with their help at the initial stage itself.
* Implementation of above measures and supervision from higher levels would certainly improve conviction rate.
It is hoped all concerned would take note of these suggestions.
