K. J. VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) OUT OF THE TWO who is to be blamed or accused more in the acquittal appeal ? One who is a driver of a tanker, who caused an instanteneous death of two young lads due to the rash and negligent and/or, two - is it the investigating agency which failed to perform its first and foremost elementary duty of establishing the identity of the accused as a person involved in the fatal accident causing the death of the prosecution case also ? And if the aforesaid blame can as well be squarely fixed on the investigating agency then whether mere resort to Sec. 25 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (dealing with the departmental inquiry and power of the State Government to punish the Police Officer for neglect of duty) by itself is an adequate measure commensurate with the grossness of the negligence of the Investigating Officer. Further whether such a measure by itself can in any way at all help improving face-lifting of the falling standard of investigation ? What then is the way out? these, in short, at the outset, are the indexes to the discussion that is to follow while appreciating the merits of this acquittal appeal. ( 2 ) THIS acquittal appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 2 9/09/1980, in Criminal Case No. 27 of 1980, rendered by the learned j. M. F. C. Chotila, wherein the accused-Chhanabhai Mangalbhai, who came to be charged and tried for the offences punishable under Secs. 279, 304a of the I. P. C. read with Secs. 112 and 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, at the end of the trial was ordered to be acquitted. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY, it was the prosecution case that the alleged fatal accident took place on 13/01/1980 at 18-00 hours near Shuklawadi on way to the village Bamanbore, wherein one Mahesh Mulji along with his companion pillionrider kishor Lalji, were proceeding to Rajkot on a Scooter bearing No. GTR 3369, a Tanker bearing No. GTY 3330 coming to Chotila from the opposite direction, collided with the said scooter and both the scooterist-young boys lost their respective lives on the spot. The accused abandoning the tanker fled the scene of the incident. The accused abandoning the tanker fled the scene of the incident. On the basis of these facts, one Hiralal Ranchhodbhai, a cousin of the deceased filed a complaint at Chotila Police Station for offences under Sec. 279, 304a I. P. C. and under Secs. 112 and 116 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939. ( 4 ) IT is further the prosecution case that after the said accident, the accused abandoning his tanker, escaped and on next day that is on 1 4/01/1980 presented himself before Mr. L. H. Desai (who at the relevant time was Sr. P. S. I. Petlad Town Police Station) along with his employer truck-owner, Mr. Thakorbhai Patel and a cleaner Mr. Mohanbhai and reported to him about the alleged accident. He also further informed P. S. I. Mr. Desai that due to fear, he abandoning the tanker had fled from the scene of incident and reported first about the accident to his employer Mr. Thakorbhai Patel, and then had come to the Police Station. The said P. S. I. thereafter recorded the statement of these three persons, prepared a panchnama regarding the physical condition of the accused-driver and arrested him at about 8. 00 hours and them along with the report and under Police bandobast, forwarded him to Chotila Police Station. Ultimately, on the basis of the said complaint, after the investigation was over, the accused came to be chargesheeted to stand the trial before the Court of the learned J. M. F. C. Chotila. ( 5 ) AT the trial, the accused pleaded not guilty and total denial. ( 6 ) AFTER duly appreciating the evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused mainly on two grounds, viz. , (i) neither the identity of the accused as a driver of the Tanker bearing No. GTY 3330, and (ii) nor the rash and negligent driving of the said tanker causing death of two young scooterists were established. ( 7 ) HENCE, aggrieved by the same this acquittal appeal by the State. ( 8 ) MR. R. R. Tripathi, the learned Addl. P. P. while challenging the impugned order of acquittal, has carefully taken me through the material evidence on record and the reasons for acquittal given by the trial Court. ( 7 ) HENCE, aggrieved by the same this acquittal appeal by the State. ( 8 ) MR. R. R. Tripathi, the learned Addl. P. P. while challenging the impugned order of acquittal, has carefully taken me through the material evidence on record and the reasons for acquittal given by the trial Court. ( 9 ) NOW in order to appreciate as to how impugned judgment and order of acquittal is illegal and erroneous, it is necessary first of all to briefly scan the prosecution evidence. Accordingly, let us examine the evidence regarding the identity of the accused. In this regard, prosecution has examined P. W. 3-Mohanlal Karamshi, Exh. 15 an only eye witness. It is the say of this witness that on the day when this accident occurred, he was proceeding on his scooter and that at some distance ahead of him, another scooter on its correct side with two persons on it was going; a tanker coming from the opposite direction went off on the wrong side and collided with the said scooter, as a result of which, the scooterist lost balance, the scooter was crushed beneath and both the scooterists died on the spot. It is his further say that after the accident, he chased the tanker in question, but in vain, as after abandoning the same, two persons were seen running away. He noted down the number of the said tanker which was GTY 3330, but he could not identify as to who was driving the said tanker. The said statement of this witness was recorded by the investigating Officer, P. S. I. Mr. Solanki on 14/01/1980. Now under such circumstances, one thing is very clear namely that the investigating officer very well knew that the eye witness P. W. 3-Mohanlal Karamshibhai exh. 15 was an only and the most material witness, on whose testimony depended either the success or failure of prosecution. He also knew that this eye witness was not knowing the accused previously and had seen him while running away only. 15 was an only and the most material witness, on whose testimony depended either the success or failure of prosecution. He also knew that this eye witness was not knowing the accused previously and had seen him while running away only. Therefore, it is very clear that unless and until an attempt by way of the test identification parade of the accused by the said eye witness Mohanlal was made, it was not possible at all to fix and establish the identity of the accused as a person in-charge of a Tanker bearing No. GTY 3330 involved in the accident and yet, the record of the case does not disclose that any attempt was made by the Investigating Officer to connect the accused with the alleged crime by holding the test identification parade : The Investigating Officer himself while giving evidence before the Court has maintained complete silence on the point of any such efforts being made by him for holding the test identification parade. Does this not appear like one styling himself as a literate and a degree-holder and yet ignorant of alphabets ? Regrettably irreconcilable situation ! Is not it ? 9. 1 In context of the point under consideration at this juncture it would be useful to refer to the relevant provisions contained in Vol. III of the Gujarat police Manual, 1975, wherein in a Chapter on "detailed Procedure Regarding investigation" provisions are incorporated in Rule 137 to Rule 239 setting out exhaustive guidelines as to how methodically and correctly the investigation of a crime is to be carried out by the Investigating Officer. Any Police Officer ignorant of any of these guidelines cannot be called an Investigating Officer who can ever be entrusted with the investigation and detection of the crime save and except, at the cost and eril of public and fair name of the Police. The relevant Rule 181 enlisting instruction as to how the test identification parade is to be held and carried out reads as under :"181. Holding of Identification Parade :- (1) (a) Object of the Identification Parade of accused persons is to test the varacity of eye witnesses when they have a genuine claim to have seen the culprit and to assure reliability of the witnesses who pass the test. Holding of Identification Parade :- (1) (a) Object of the Identification Parade of accused persons is to test the varacity of eye witnesses when they have a genuine claim to have seen the culprit and to assure reliability of the witnesses who pass the test. (b) The statement made before Police officers by witnesses at the time of Identification parades are statements to the Police and as such are hit by Sec. 162, Criminal procedure Code. In view of this it is necessary that Identification Parades are not conducted in the presence of Police Officers, and as such Identification Parades held in the presence of the Police are inadmissible in the Courts. The Police Officers concerned should obtain the help of Executive Magistrate to hold Identification parades. When the presense of Executive Magistrate is not readity available, the only alternative is to hold the parade by the panch witnesses. (c) The Police Officers, should arrange for the identification parade in all cases in which the identity of the accused could not otherwise be established beyond doubt. (d) The identification proceedings being in nature of tests, no provisions for holding them is to be found in the code or even in the Indian Evidence Act. Proceedings are record of facts which establish the identity of any thing or person and which may be relevant under Sec. 9, Indian Evidence Act. (e) The identification test is usually adopted during the investigation of crime by the Police when the witnesses are interrogated and state that they had seen some persons committing the crime, but do not know their names and would be able to identify them. (f) The identification parade is held during investigation only, only at the instance of investigation agency, to satisfy itself whether the particular suspect participated in the crime or not by putting him up before the witnesses who claim to have been present at the time the crime was committed. (g) Since the human memory is apart to get dulled with the passage of time, it is desirable both in the interest of the honest witness and of the suspect himself that the latter be put up for identification without delay. Test identification parade should be arranged early at any rate before the accused goes on bail. In fact, Courts ought to refuse bail if an identification parade going to be and ought to be held. Test identification parade should be arranged early at any rate before the accused goes on bail. In fact, Courts ought to refuse bail if an identification parade going to be and ought to be held. So, not only the test identification parade has to be arranged at the earliest possible opportunity, but bail will have to be opposed strenuously until the test identification parade is finished. (h) Piece-meal identification parades are depricated, at the same time delays mar its sanctity. (i) The Police should continue the investigation and collect evidence even though the accused are identified in identification parades. Procedure for Identification Parade (2) (a) Before the Identification Parade : (i) The accused or suspect, at the time of his arrest to be told that he is to be put on test Identification Parade. (ii) The Investigating Officer should screen the lock-up in which the suspect is kept before sending to jail. (b) At the time of parade and after : (i) the number of persons to be mixed should not be too few or too many. It is better to have separate parades for not more than two at a time. However, it is advisable to mix up the accused or suspect with other person in the proportion of 1 to 9 and for every additional accused or suspect the number of persons to be mixed should be increased by 5. (ii) Police Officers should completely obliterate themselves after arranging the parade. (iii) Witnesses to be kept away at a distance and called one by one. (iv) After identification witnesses should not be allowed to mix with other witnesses who are still be forwarded. (v) Any objection by the accused or suspect for the presence of any person at the parade should be given proper consideration. (vi) In case of deformity or special marks suitable arrangements should be made to bring in uniformity. (vii) In cases where an accused or suspect whose identification is necessary is lying in hospital, the identifying witnesses should be kept out of sight of the Ward in which he is lying and the accused or suspect should be shown to the panchas and given the option of having his cot changed, if he so desires. The panchnama should show whether this was done or not and should also show how many patients and cot are there in the ward, with their numbers. The panchnama should show whether this was done or not and should also show how many patients and cot are there in the ward, with their numbers. Identifying witnesses should then be called and the procedure outlined above should be followed. (viii) The attendance of witnesses at the Identification Parade is the sole responsibility of the Investigating officer. "9. 2 Having seen appreciated the aforesaid illuminating lucid guidelines, the question that arises is as to how and why the same was not followed by the Investigating Officer ? To utter shock and surprise who supervises all these ? Where is that live, responsible-people, oriented and accountable administration ? Whatever be the reason, but fact remains that with such a callous investigation to expect the maintenance of law and order in a society is just hoping against the hope. It certainly would not have been difficult to hold the test identification parade of the accused by the Investigating officer because evidence of P. W. 7-P. S. I. Mr. Desai, Ex. 24 clearly reveals that after recording statements of three persons viz the accused, Thakorbhai patel the owner of the truck, and a cleaner Mohanbhai Mangalbhai, the accused came to be arrested by him on 14/01/1980, at 8-00 hours and these after along with papers, his custody was forwarded to Chotila Police station for further investigation. The statement of eye witness P. W. 3- mohanbhai Karamshi, Ex. 15, was recorded on 14/01/1980. Therefore, the Investigating officer clearly knew that the said eye witness had not named and identified the accused. Under such circumstances when both the accused as well as Mohanbhai Karamshi were available on 14/01/1980 itself, there should not have been any difficulty in holding the identification parade by summoning the Executive Magistrate etc. Not only this, but it further appears from the examination-in-chief of P. W. 7-P. S. I. Mr. Desai, Ex. 24, that certain papers (accident report by accused, statements of Mr. Thakorbhai Patel and the cleaner, Panchnama regarding physical condition of the accused arrest report etc. prepared at Petlad Town Police Station) which are supposed to be the part and parcel of the investigation of the present case were sought to be produced for the first time at the time of trial in Court. Thakorbhai Patel and the cleaner, Panchnama regarding physical condition of the accused arrest report etc. prepared at Petlad Town Police Station) which are supposed to be the part and parcel of the investigation of the present case were sought to be produced for the first time at the time of trial in Court. No explanation is forthcoming regarding this remissness of Investigating Officer as to why the same were not sent along with the charge-sheet submitted by the Police earlier. The learned Addl. P. P. when asked about this, had no explanation to offer. Thus, it is very clear that but for the inefficient investigation in establishing the identity of the accused and lack of supervision and control by senior officer, to that extent, the prosecution would not have failed. Thus, if on the score of the identity alone, if the accused is acquitted, then is if not the investigating agency which can be blamed-accused of indirectly saying the accused (tanker driver) ? ( 10 ) IT is sad to find the accused going unpunished on account of such sheer carelessness of the investigating agency in not holding the test identification parade. if such carelessness is not attended to promptly and taken appropriate care, the same can as well mar far more serious offences like murder, dacoity, etc. The very foundation of justice in criminal cases is an honest, intelligent and efficient investigation. Having regard to "the principles of criminal jurisprudence and the doctrine of benefit of doubt thereunder" to which our judicial system is wedded to, a slight lapse here or there either by the investigating agency in conducting the investigation or by some witness in giving evidence before the Court can result into the accused getting-off of the prosecution hook. 10. 1 The experience shows that such lapses on the part of the investigating agencies though often criticised with a view to see that they are corrected in time and do not get repeated in future to the disadvantage of the prosecution itself or to be precise to the disadvantage of the society, there is no desired improvement in the same. Comments are made not for the sake of commenting but are made with a view to see that the method of investigation is corrected and improves further and further. Comments are made not for the sake of commenting but are made with a view to see that the method of investigation is corrected and improves further and further. This court has not even a slightest of doubt that higher officers in this regard must be taking some steps against the erring investigating agencies reprimanding them to improve their qualities of investigation. Yet, unfortunately, this do not appear to be enough to have solved the problem to the extent which is generally expected to be. True, it is not possible to control the witness deposing in a particular manner before the Court, however, so far as the investigating agency is concerned, it can certainly be well informed, educated and if needed reprimanded and thereby corrected and controlled in conducting the investigation if it is so seriously willed, planned and persued. It is not at all difficult to weed-out certain recurring proto-type investigational lapses like (i) not holding of the test identification parade; (ii) if held, not holding it as promptly and in copy book fashion as directed in the Police Manual; (iii) improper selection of panchas; (iv) not taking proper care in sealing muddamal articles; and in immediately not forwarding the same for anaylsis; (iv) investigating Officers not appearing before the Court in some cases to give evidence; (vi) delay and/or not serving the Courts process in certain cases; (vii) not following the express guidelines provided in the Gujarat Police manual in the matter of conducting investigation, etc. if the Courts of law and the top Police authorities in charge of law and order affairs of the State jointly resolve to compliment each others efforts by constructive, continuous and positive inter-action in this direction. if the Courts of law and the top Police authorities in charge of law and order affairs of the State jointly resolve to compliment each others efforts by constructive, continuous and positive inter-action in this direction. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY, to set things right, it appears to this Court that whenever any Court during the course of the trial, comes across a self-condemned and self-exposed investigation like the one in the present case, it must unhesitatingly call upon itself to perform the triple duties namely (i) to give its anxious consideration and reflection upon the illegal and mala fide manner of investigation, (ii) having done so, if the Court is of the opinion that the investigation of the case was suffering from serious lapses and precisely because of which, the accused is let-off, then it is the duty of such Court to make pertinent observation on the point; and (iii) in overall public interest, to forward the said observations to the Secretary, Home Department, and/or to Director General of Police, and/ or to the Commissioner of Police, or the District Superintendent of Police, as the case may be, depending upon the seriousness and gravity of the lapse committed in the investigation so as to generate needed responsive action in the matter. This is what is also directed by Rule 173 (3) of the Criminal Manual, 1977. The said Rule reads as under :" Rule 173 (3) : Instances of abuse of authority or misconduct by the Police coming to the notice of Presiding Officers of the Courts except the Courts of the metropolitan Magistrates, Ahmedabad, should be reported through Sessions Judge to the District Magistrates, and by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, through the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to the Commissioner of Police by supplying a copy of the judgment or otherwise as may be convenient. When such report is made by a Sessions Judge or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, respectively, should report to the Sessions Judge or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, the action taken. If the sessions Judge or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, is not satisfied with the action taken, he may refer the matter to the Registrar of the High court". 11. If the sessions Judge or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, is not satisfied with the action taken, he may refer the matter to the Registrar of the High court". 11. 1 If any Court fails in performance of its duties indicated hereinabove, it would be committing a serious dereliction of duty on its part as honest, sincere and conscientious Police Officer keen to maintain the highest quality of the investigation would be deprived of his valuable opportunity, right and duty to do whatsoever needful and the best he can do under the circumstances to help/ improve the situation. One cannot blame the Police Officer for not doing anything to improve the situation when there is passivity and inaction on the part of the Court. 11. 2 A word of caution is necessary at this stage to all Courts while discharging duties of making observations as indicated above. In this regard, the attention of all Criminal Courts are invited to guidelines incorporated in rule 173 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Manual, 1977, which read as under :"rule 173 (1) Judgments should be temperately worded. (2) If a Judge or Magistrate finds it necessary to criticise the conduct of an official of another department in a judgment, the criticism must be worded with the utmost care having regard to the fact that in cases the official had no opportunity to refute the criticism or explain action criticised. Personal imputations should not be made. A copy of the judgment should be supplied to the official superior to the official criticised". Personal imputations should not be made. A copy of the judgment should be supplied to the official superior to the official criticised". It must further be borne in mind that observations regarding the investigation made by the Courts are :- (i) bona fide and based on definite and reliable material on the record; (ii) that the same should be objective and constructive; (iii) further, if the Court while examining the Investigating Officer and on the basis of the evidence on record is able to form on the spot opinion that there were serious inflaws in the investigation smacking of something else, then before commenting upon such investigation in its judgment, it may seek explanation on such questionable investigation from the concerned Investigating Officer when he is very much in the dock, unless, of course, things are so patently clear that it needs no clarification at all; (iv) while making the observation, the concerned Court in its over enthusiasm should not abandon its usual grace, dignity and restraint in its forth-right criticims. Firmness of the opinion of the Court does not mean that it can be at the cost of throwing to the winds all norms of judicial grace (nobility, humility and sincerity ). Neither it can mean intemperate, immodest and loose language. Basically the whole underlying idea of the Court commenting upon the investigation is merely a diagnosistic that is to say, to locate a particular disease in order to cure the investigation agency of its so detected disease by referring it to its superior officers who in their turn can check further deterioration and prevent it from getting relapsed in future and certainly not to unnecessarily hit the patient thereby; (v) further, the duty of making observation in the matter of the investigation does not always necessarily mean on adverse comment against the investigation. In fact, if the Court comes across really laudable copy-book investigation, then in that case, it must in a sentence or two appreciate the same in its judgment. Such a pat on the back of the deserving Investigating Officer will also go a long way in instilling the needed incentive and enthusiasm in him to have still better investigation in the future. Such a pat on the back of the deserving Investigating Officer will also go a long way in instilling the needed incentive and enthusiasm in him to have still better investigation in the future. ( 12 ) IN context of the above discussion, let us further usefully refer to Rules 271 and 272 of the said Police Manual which pertains to the "scrutiny of judgments" and "procedure for the expunction of strictures made in judgment, as found in Chapter VII under the caption "prosecution and Court proceedings". These two Rules read as under :"rule 271. Scrutiny of Judgments : (1) According to Sec. 365 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Sessions Judges or the chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate send copies of judgments of all cases tried by them to the District Magistrates, who in turn send the same to the Superintendents of Police. The Superintendents of Police should study the judgments with a view to see whether there are any faults or shortcomings in the investigation. They should take suitable remedial measures on them. If the fault is of general kind, a copy of the order issued by them should be sent to the Deputy Inspector general of Police, Criminal Investigation Department (Crime and Railways) who in consultation with the Inspector General of Police will decide if general orders are necessary. A copy of the report sent to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Criminal investigation Department (Crime and Railways) should also be sent to the Range Deputy inspector General of Police. In case of Commissionerate area, the Commissioner of police should take steps for the scrutiny of the judgments and take suitable measures and sent a copy of his report to the Inspector General of Police. (2) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (3) In cases which are triable by the Courts other than Sessions Court or Chief judicial Magistrates or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police in-charge of division in Ahmedabad City and the Sub-Divisional Police Officers in-charge of divisions in mofussil shall scrutinise the judgment and keep similar register and send their reports to the Commissioner of Police/superintendents of police about the action taken or proposed to be taken. (4) The Range Deputy Inspectors General of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police of divisions in Commissionerate area shall scrutinise these registers during their inspections and offer their remarks, if any, in the inspection notes. Rule 272. Procedure for the Expunction of Strictures made in Judgement : (1) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (2) Requests are sometimes made to Government for moving the High Court/sessions court to expunge remarks made in judgments of lower Courts against Police Officers or other Government servants, which are considered unjust. The proper time to move the High Court, Sessions Court in such cases is when the judgments, in which the remarks objected to are made, are before the High Court/sessions Court either in appeal or in revision. The Officers concerned should bring such remarks to the notice of Government through their superiors and the respective District Magistrates in good time, so that the Government Pleader, High Court, Public Prosecutor, can in proper case be instructed to move the High Court/sessions Court to expunge the remarks when the judgment comes before it either in appeal or in revision. Such action is possible only when the judgments of the lower Courts come before the high Court/sessions Court either in appeal or in revision and not otherwise. (3) Whenever adverse remarks against the Police Officers are made by the Courts in judgments, a report indicating the action taken or proposed to be taken or why no action is considered necessary should be submitted in the Government. (4) The Commissioner of Police/superintendents of Police are required to send annual return in respect of strictures passed by the Magistrates or Sessions Judges to the Governments so as to reach the Government by 31st January every year containing the information on the following points : (i) Serial Number. (ii) Police Station Cr. No. and Sections. (iii) Criminal Case Number. (iv) Name of the Court who delivered judgment and the date of judgment. (v) Name of the Police Officer/men against whom strictures are passed. (vi) Strictures in brief passed. (vii) Action taken against the Police Officers/men showing the nature of punishment awarded or decision taken otherwise. (viii) Remarks. (5) If there are any strictures on investigation, the Superintendent of Police should send a copy of the strictures to the Range Deputy Inspector General of Police with a note on action taken or proposed to be taken. (vii) Action taken against the Police Officers/men showing the nature of punishment awarded or decision taken otherwise. (viii) Remarks. (5) If there are any strictures on investigation, the Superintendent of Police should send a copy of the strictures to the Range Deputy Inspector General of Police with a note on action taken or proposed to be taken. The Range Deputy Inspector General of Police should send the information to the Inspector general of Police if they think it necessary. Likewise, the Commissioner of Police will send similar information to the Inspector General of Police". ( 13 ) IT is indeed regrettable that despite specific guidelines provided in "criminal manual" and "gujarat Police Manual", neither some of the concerned Courts nor the some of the Investigating Officers appear to be paying the desired attention to them, as much as it is ordinarily expected of them to do so. Under the circumstances, therefore, the concerned authorities will have to see as to how best the said instructions enlisted in the aforesaid Manuals are strictly enforced and implemented. ( 14 ) TALKING of the case at hand, the test identification parade of the accused was invariably a must for connecting the accused with the crime alleged against him and yet for the reasons best known to the concerned Investigating Officer, the same has not been undertaken. Why ? Why the trial Court having noticed such a serious lapse on the part of the investigating agency in not holding test identification parade, firstly, failed to take serious note of it in making the deserving remarks in its judgment and thereafter, failed to communicate the same to senior Police Officer, is difficult to understand. Do not the investigating agency and the trial Court owe explanations for such remissness ? May be there might be some rational or plausible explanation which may be acceptable or may not be acceptable, but at the same time, in the event of such explanation is found to be totally unacceptable, then whether such a serious lapse can be permitted to be over-looked light-heartedly? and that too at whose cost and what risk? Unfortunately, by this time, the present case has become as old as 10 years and much waters have flown thereafter in between this period. It is very likely that by this time, the quality of the concerned Investigating officer might have perhaps improved or deteriorated. Difficult to say. and that too at whose cost and what risk? Unfortunately, by this time, the present case has become as old as 10 years and much waters have flown thereafter in between this period. It is very likely that by this time, the quality of the concerned Investigating officer might have perhaps improved or deteriorated. Difficult to say. But one thing is very certain that had the trial Court been little more alert in taking serious note of the unpardonable lapse in the investigation in its judgment and initiated the forwarding of the copy of the judgment to the responsible Police Officer, then perhaps, he could have taken some steps to check, control, educate, reprimand the concerned Investigating Officer. This would have clearly saved the trial Court from being blamed of such unconcerned approach in the cause of justice. This does not mean that superior officer could not have supervised the investigating agency from correcting and controlling it as otherwise ordinarily directed in Police manual. ( 15 ) STRICTLY speaking, if the State is keen enough to improve the law and order situation, it must as a matter of utter necessity without any delay enforce strict discipline and strive relentlessly to improve and sharpen the quality of investigation in its Police force. In the opinion of this Court, there is no other better way of enforcing the discipline in the Police force than by maintaining a sharp and constant vigilance on day-to-day investigation of every case. Every Investigating Officer must be made conscious to realize the fact that their every step in investigation is minutely watched and reported by the Courts to the responsible top Police officers to be screened by them and that their entire career prospect depends upon the qualities of their honest, sincere and efficient investigation of the case. As a matter of fact, it is advisable to evolve such honest and efficiency-proof workable system of preparing confidential report of each and every Investigating officer on the basis of the opinion of the Courts (also) so formed during the trial or while considering any Misc. Criminal Application regarding the quality of their investigation. If this device and advice is scrupulously followed and implemented, it would be difficult for a dishonest, inefficient and insincere Investigating Officer to dare take chance to play foul while conducting the investigation. Criminal Application regarding the quality of their investigation. If this device and advice is scrupulously followed and implemented, it would be difficult for a dishonest, inefficient and insincere Investigating Officer to dare take chance to play foul while conducting the investigation. ( 16 ) IT is high time that the importance and urgency of honest, efficient, investigation on correct line is realised at the earliest and the necessary steps in the light of the aforesaid discussion and direction are taken. Can one not have an independent special cell which on the basis of this Courts observations and guidelines on the one hand continuously correct, control and guide the method and manner of investigation and on the other hand, mark the service record of the concerned Investigating Officer for his promotion or demotion or the dismissal as the case may be ? Such a double check system, to my mind, can improve the quality of investigation which in its turn can improve the results of the criminal cases in the court to the ultimate benefit of social order. It is only this spirit and sense of togetherness between the Courts and the investigating agency, which is the demand of the time to be immediately reckoned with to make "rule of law" real and effective. ( 17 ) ORDINARILY, the High Court need not enter into any discussion or a controvery which is not germane to the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the Court must understand the basic difference between the judicial detachment and wooden indifference to the needs and screams of the society and further what is germane to the facts and circumstances of the case calling upon it to play active and effective role by making useful observations in the interest of society which is the only interest of justice. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court cannot afford to be insensitive, insensible and oblivious to the live and recurring day-to-day issued of increasing inefficiency, abuses, excesses and absence of exercising statutory powers by the investigating agency. ( 18 ) ACCORDINGLY, having regard to the question involved and discussed hereinabove, this Court would be simply failing in its duty if the copy of this judgment is not forwarded to the concerned authorities appraising them of the anxious situation warranting prompt consideration and action in the matter. ( 18 ) ACCORDINGLY, having regard to the question involved and discussed hereinabove, this Court would be simply failing in its duty if the copy of this judgment is not forwarded to the concerned authorities appraising them of the anxious situation warranting prompt consideration and action in the matter. ( 19 ) AS a result, the office is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to : (i) the Secretary, Home Department of Gujarat at Gandhinagar, (ii) the director General of Police, Gujarat State at Ahmedabad; and (iii) all the learned sessions Judges, inviting their special attention to para-10 onwards. It is further directed that the office shall circulate Gujarati version of this judgment to all the learned Magistrates. ( 20 ) WHILE reverting back to the merits of this acquittal appeal, it must be held that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused and it is not possible to interfere with the same. . ( 21 ) IN the result, therefore, this acquittal appeal fails and is dismissed. .