articles on Role & Problem of public prosecution relating madhy pradesh

         Role of public prosecutor 

                In independent India, it goes without saying that the 

criminal justice system (hereafter CJS) must function within the 

framework of the principles enunciated by the Constitution. 

Broadly speaking, these are as follows :

1.The guarantee of equality before the law 

2. Equal protection of the laws 

3. Prohibition of discrimination imposed upon the State 

4. Deprivation of life / personal liberty only in accordance 

with procedure established by    law 

5. Presumption of innocence of the accused 

6. The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt 

7. The right of the accused to remain silent 

8. Arrest and detention in accordance with law and judicial 

guideline

 9. Protection against double jeopardy

10.Non-retrospective punishment

           

            No appraisal of the criminal justice system can suggest derogation from these principles. Rather, it is these very principles that are the indicators on the basis of which any evaluation of the criminal justice system may be made. The independence of the judicial system is a key element of the basic structure of Indian constitutional democracy via the separation of powers between the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. Over the last sixty five years there has been much debate and discussion on the independence of the Indian judicial system, with varying opinions depending upon the political, social and economic location of the discussants.

           The Public Prosecutor has been described as a Minister of Justice who plays a critical role in maintaining purity and impartiality in the field of administration of criminal justice 

( Jitendra Kumar@ Ajju vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Crl. W.P. 216/99, Delhi High Court).

        The last two decades have seen communal and fascist entities gain large support. Often their respective agendas contravene the avowed goals of the Indian Constitution. These forces repeatedly assert the interests of caste and communal elites. The imperatives of fair trial and justice demand that the prosecution be insulated from such regimes and interests. Similarly the dictates of globalization and structural adjustment are propelling a transition within State policy from general welfare to the facilitation of finance capital and private business. This requires the legal system to respond in a particular manner. In circumstances wherein public interest and the public good are being redefined, it is unlikely that the Prosecutors office will remain unaffected. Outside these developments, other pressures such as patriarchal prejudices and caste/class biases impinge upon the functioning of the State and its agencies.

        It is clear that the office of the Public Prosecutor needs more attention and more autonomy to ensure greater success. However, success cannot be measured in numbers of convictions. All too often the rate of convictions becomes the sole indicator of the health of the Indian CJS. Concerns about its condition are valid, but the prognosis and diagnosis has to be accurate to avoid further deterioration.

        The Malimath Committee Report (2003) correctly acknowledged that there is a crisis in the Indian CJS. But its analysis of the crisis is disturbing. Rather than focusing on key issues that plague the CJS, the Committee recommended changes that amounted to a complete departure from jurisprudential norms. It cannot be overemphasized that the health of the criminal justice system cannot be gauged from statistics of convictions or death sentences. Such analysis is not only faulty and misleading but also often contrary to legal and constitutional safeguards, with dangerous implications for citizens. This project is a starting point of a fresh debate on what ails India's prosecution mechanisms and why the office of the Public Prosecutor needs greater autonomy.

          The challenge before the Public Prosecutor is to maintain impartiality and neutrality while prosecuting any and all persons facing criminal prosecution. The assumption here is that the State is committed to safeguarding and promoting the interests and rights of all constituents of society. This premise ignores the segregated and hierarchical nature of Indian society. The bland notion of the State as a completely neutral instrument of a consensual popular will, upholding 'national interest' raises several issues. One is the tendency of state institutions and personnel to coagulate and emerge as an interest in themselves. The phenomenon of corruption is symptomatic of this tendency, especially if we define corruption broadly as manifest not merely in financial defalcation, but also in the perversion from fidelity of state institutions. The question of equal access to justice by aggrieved citizens, regardless of their social and financial status is another. Furthermore, when entrenched interests within the State feel threatened, perverse motives can influence the decisions and procedures of the CJS. 'National' and 'social' ideals may be cited in order to quell protest and criticism, and the instruments meant to protect citizens may become the instruments of oppression. This is why the ideal of separation of powers and the autonomy of the judicial system is crucial to the very legitimacy of the State.

                                                                                       source courtesy:Aman panchayat

अभियोजन में पलायन : कारण और निदान ( सतीश दिनकर , उप संचालक अभियोजन ) 

दि. २८/१०/२०१४ को वाटसेप पर “५ एडीपीओ बने सिविल जज” समाचार पोस्ट होने तीब्रता से प्रितिक्रियाए आयीं ! एक ओर चयनित अधिकारियों को बधाई, दूसरी ओर दिल को छूने वाला विचार कि अभियोजन से अधिकरियों का पलायन दशा ओर दिशा,विषय को चिंतनीय बनाता है.
निश्चित है कि आकर्षक वेतनमान, सेवाशर्तें,पदोन्नति,प्रतिष्ठा आदि बातों से व्यक्ति को स्वाभाविक लगाव होता है. अभियोजन की दशा किसी से छुपी नहीं है.पदनाम से राजपत्रित अधिकारी के रूप में अभियोजन सेवाकी शुरुआत होती है. अपर्याप्त वेतनमान, कार्यालयों में अपर्याप्त स्थान, मूलभूत सुविधाओं का अभाव, पदोन्नति के सीमित अवसर,अभियोजन से जुड़े विभागों की यह धारणा कि ये लोग तो सिर्फ त्रुटिया निकलते है, ऐसे कारणों से अभियोजन के प्रति नकारात्मक भाव रहा है ओर उससे विभाग उपेक्षित रहा है. कार्यक्षमता पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव डालने वाले कारकों की ओर शासन का ध्यान इसलिए आकर्षित नहीं हो पाता क्योंकि जनमानस में अभियोजन अधिकारियों के कार्यो का आकलन करने का कोई पैमाना नहीं है. जनमानस कार्यो का श्रेय न्यायपालिका, पुलिस, विशेषज्ञ साक्ष्य आदि को दे देता है,मिडिया भी इसी पैमाने पर तोलता है.
अभियोजन अधिकारियों के कार्य नियंत्रण/कार्य समीक्षा/पर्यवेक्षण/ मूल्यांकन में अनिश्चिता है.प्रकरण की तैयारी के लिये केसडायरी की उपलव्धता नहीं, केसडायरी रखने, कोर्टमोहिर्र से कैसे काम ले इस बावत स्पष्ट व्यवस्था नहीं है! अभियोजन को गवाहों के न्यायालीन कथनों की प्रमाणित प्रति देने हेतु व्यवस्था संतोषजनक नहींहै! पत्राचार, प्रतिवेदन, अपील / रिवीजन प्रस्ताव तैयार कराने हेतु सुविधाओं का अभाव है. विधि विभाग ओर गृह विभाग दो विभागों में अभियोजन विभाजित है. आमजनता इस अंतर को नहीं समझती. राष्ट्रीय स्तर पर बहुचर्चित मामलोँ में अभियोजन का संचालन नामचीन अधिवक्ताओ में से नियुक्त विशेष लोक अभियोजक द्वारा किया जाता है, नियमित संवर्ग को यह मौका नहीं मिलता. अत: दशाओं के संबंध में स्पष्ट है कि नियमित संवर्ग के अभियोजन अधिकारियों को आकर्षक वेतन नहीं मिलता, उसके कार्यक्षेत्र में सफलता का श्रेय भी उसे नहीं मिलता ! आपको पर्याप्त दाम भी नहीं,नाम भी नही ! तो ऐसी दशा में अभियोजन अधिकारियों के मन में नैराश्य स्वाभाविक है !///
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
जहाज के कप्तान को गंतव्य पता होता है ! लक्ष्य पाने पहले विचार, मनन, दूरदर्शिता,योजना, क्रियांवयन एवम सामंजस्य जैसी बातें आवश्यक होती है ! सशक्त अभियोजन के संबंध में मंथन कम ही हुआ है. किसी खबर के साथ अभियोजन के बारे में कुछ लिख दिया जावे तो बात अलग है, किन्तु अभियोजन के बारे में ऐसे लेख यदाकदा ही पढ़ने मिलते है जो आपको/आम लोगों को सोचने मजबूर कर दे . आपराधिक न्यायप्रणाली के सम्बंध में विचार करते समय शीर्षस्थ विधिवेद्ता, विचारक, आयोग व् अन्य संस्थाऐ अभियोजन के सशक्तीकरण पर यदाकदा ही बल देते है. योजनाऐ बन भी जाती तो उन पर अमल विलम्ब से या अनुपातिक रूप में कम ही हो पाता है. अपराधो पर प्रभावशाली नियंत्रण के लिए सरकार बहुत कदम उठाती है किन्तु ऐसा द्रष्टिकोण नहीं है की सजायाबी में बढोतरी से भी अपराधो में कमी आ सकती है.
न्याय प्रणाली के सशक्तीकरण पर युएनडीपी के (SAJI ) प्रयोजित कार्यशाला नईदिल्ली एवम पुलिस अकादमी हैदराबाद कार्यशाला/ ट्रेनिंग में अभियोजन के मुद्दे गौण थे,ध्यान आकर्षित करने पर विषय रुचिकर हए. ओर परिणाम का उदाहरण १३वे वित्त आयोग में गुणवत्ता विकास हेतु बजट उपलब्धता है.किन्तु सामयिक सुधारओ से अभियोजन बंचित है.राष्ट्रीय व राज्य स्तर पर इस ओर ध्यान दिया जाना आवश्यक है.
असंतोष के कारणों का विश्लेषण करने पर मुख्य घटक दर्शित होते है, जिनका उल्लेख करना सारहीन ही होगा. आपरधिक कृत्य को दो द्रष्टिकोण से लोग देखते है. यदि सूक्ष्मता से देखा जावे तो प्रकरणों के संचालन का अंतर स्पष्ट होगा. जहां पीड़ित पक्ष रूचि लेता है अथवा जहां बहुचर्चित जघन्य अपराध में राज्य रुचि लेता है. प्रकरण के सकारात्मक नतीजे आते है ओर सजायाबी का ग्राफ ऊपर जाने लगता है ! यदि इस भेद को नीतिनिर्माता गम्भीरता से ले ओर आवश्यक व्यवस्थाए/ सुबिधाए उपलब्ध करा दे तो अपराध नियंत्रण की दिशा में, अभियोजन अधिकारियों की विश्वनीयता में एवम कार्यक्षमता को सशक्त करने की ओर सकारात्मक कदम होगा ! क्योंकि अपराध मात्र व्यक्ति के प्रति किया गया(कृत्य ) अपराध नहीं अपितु राज्य के प्रति किया गया अपराध होता है !
अभियोजन अधिकारियों में गुणवत्ता हेतु मात्र ट्रेनिंग पर्याप्त नही होगी अपितु ऐसे कारणों का निदान भी आवश्यक है, जो प्रकरणों के त्वरित निराकरण में विलम्ब एवम सकारात्मक परिणाम में बाधा पहुचाते हैं ! समस्याओं के निदान में क्या आपको जन समर्थन मिल सकेगा ? क्या सोशल मीडिया आपकी आवाज का माध्यम बन सकेगा ? यदि हाँ तो कैसे ..
. फिर भी आशा किरण नजर आती है, राज्य शासन के समक्ष कई महत्वपूर्ण प्रस्ताव विचराधीन है यदि शासन की स्वीकृति मिल जाये तो अभियोजन की दिशा ओर दशा दोनों बदल सकती है ! १४वे वित्त आयोग में अनुदानराशि स्वीकार होने पर कार्यालयो के निर्माण की आशा की जा सकती है ! आई टी क्षेत्र में एकीक्रत योजनाओ से अभियोजन की मन्यता होगी ! तव तक हतोत्साहित न होकर अपने दायित्वों का प्रतिवद्धता से निष्पादन ही हमारा मार्ग है ! आपके हुनर को कोई तबुज्जो दे या न दे पर न्याय पाने वाला पीड़ित परिवार आपको दिल से दुआ देगा ! शायद ........पला ................!!!

Problem & working condition of Public Prosecutor

A Society need peace to function smoothly and law has the duty to full fill this great requirement.During this a Public  Prosecutor  play a herculean and holy role.no doubt he is apostle of justice.same line is pointed in this land mark judgement:-
                                    Public prosecutors are really ministers of justice whose job is none other than assisting the state in the administration of justice. They are not representatives of any party. Their job is to assist the court by placing before the court all relevant aspects of the case. They are not there to use the innocents go to the gallows. They are also not there to see the culprits escape conviction. But the pleader engaged by a private person who is a defacto complainant cannot be expected to be so impartial. Not only that, it will be his endeavor to get the conviction even if a conviction may not be possible.
[Babu v. State of Kerala (1984) Cri. LJ 499 (Ker) at 502]  

                                           but what  working condition and tools, a Prosecutor  has to discharge his duties? none take care about it.without tool and proper incentive nobody can deliver desirable  results.therefore we have to pay heed to the problems regarding prosecutor.However they are  many more but here we are hilightening afew.

                  Office and working environment   
                   
                        Most offices of public prosecutors have inadequate staff, space and furnitures. Even the recruitment rules do not provide sufficient clerical and supporting staff. Still  most staff  is borrowed from police dept and many employees has been taken back by mother department .
                                      Office building is not own but just a room given in court premises but that is nnot available even in some tahsil[block level].20 to 30 prosecutors share a little room as their office.some of them have not even own chair and desk to sit and work not even a cupboard to keep files. Use of computers is far dream to them. stationery  items including papers are in short supply. If pleadings or arguments or appeals are to be typed this is done their own cost. To know it will surprise us that a clerk, a peon, a court mohrrir  has place and chair in subordinate court room  to work but not public prosecutor 

              Pay scale/ incentives and promotion 

                            Salaries and other incentive are in very bad shape. Once it was  close with judical officers in whose court’s prosecutors worked. It was true recognition of their value and status as court officer.while after Shetty Commission judicial officers  have been  able to get charming pay increases, but public prosecutors have been left far behind not only in terms of salary but in other facilities’ too. Low pay scale is major disincentive to existing cadres as well as to future aspirants. Will u believe in Madhya Pradesh assit. District public prosecutor are getting salary equal to steno and sub inspector who are class 3 nongazzasted officer.Although assit.Dist. Public Prosecutor has 2^nd  class gazzaested rank and recruited directly through public service commission. Is this not irony that a officer who do help in justice administration is sufferer himself of gross injustice regarding his pay scale

                 Another disturbing issue is  poor channel of promotion and career advancement i.e. in Madhya Pradesh where a assistant public prosecutor  have  no opportunity to promote even after service of 20 to 30 years. Some of them get retirement on same post  without any advancement. Without changing the organizational setup it is impossible to change present scenario and it is right time to allow regular prosecution cadre in session court and as well as in high court too. With their knowledge, training and experience we shall achieve goal of criminal justice system

             
       Sec. 25[a] Crpc: Directorate of public prosecution  

                CR.P.C. sec. 25[a] provides as under:

25A. Directorate of Prosecution ¡V (1) The State Government may establish a Directorate of Prosecution consisting of a Director of Prosecution and as many Deputy Directors of Prosecution as it thinks fit.

(2) A person shall be eligible to be appointed as a Director of Prosecution or a Deputy Director of Prosecution, only if he has been in practice as an advocate for not less than ten years and such appointment shall be made with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court.

(3) The Head of the Directorate of Prosecution shall be the Director of Prosecution, who shall function under the administrative control of the Head of the Home Department in the State.

(4) Every Deputy Director of Prosecution shall be subordinate to the Director of Prosecution.

(5) Every Public Prosecutor, Additional Public Prosecutor and Special Public Prosecutor appointed by the State Government under sub-section (1), or as the case may be, sub-section (8), of section 24 to conduct cases in the High Court shall be subordinate to the Director of Prosecution.

(6) Every Public Prosecutor, Additional Public Prosecutor and Special Public Prosecutor appointed by the State Government under sub-section (3), or as the case may be, sub-section (8), of section 24 to conduct cases in District Courts and every Assistant Public Prosecutor appointed under sub-section (1) of section 25 shall be subordinate to the Deputy Director of Prosecution.

(7) The powers and functions of the Director of Prosecution and the Deputy Directors of Prosecution and the areas for which each of the Deputy Directors of Prosecution have been appointed shall be such as the State Government may, by notification, specify.

(8) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the Advocate General for the State while performing the functions of a Public Prosecutor.

The state governments are yet to implement these provisions. Reorganization of the public prosecution system in this pattern may help a lot in preventing police torture, harassment and delays as well as helping in expansion of criminal justice administration. There would be more transparency in the police-citizen relationship if the public prosecutor were an independent functionary interposed between the police and the court.

Independent prosecution: Inavoidable need

              Implementation of 25[a] Cr.p.c   is precondition to assure effective and independent prosecution. We can learn some thing regarding this from U.S.A, ITALY,BRAZIL,FIJJI,AUSTRALIA AND SOUTH AFRICA. All these countries have strong directorate of prosecution which has control over investigation agency. In USA attorney share the dias with president  but work under executive control we can see the role of prosecutor specially in Bill Clinton and Monica case. Italy has more independent prosecution body which work without executive control. In India where corruption is raising paramount hight. To noose the culprit a independent and strong prosecution is need of time.

                                                Law and society both are dynamic entities therefore law also need retrospection and amendment. Prosecution is part of law so we can’t leave behind it.