JUDGMENT : In a recent judgment the Supreme Court has observed; “the criminal justice system in this country is on crossroad”. In the last one month since I was assigned roster for bail matters, I have come across cases which make me believe that Jharkhand is no exception. There are cases in which; case-diary has been produced after as many as 5 adjournments, witnesses have not been examined even after 23 adjournments or for about 3 years, eye-witness and the informant have not been made charge-sheet witnesses, the post-mortem examination report does not record any observation regarding external injury on the dead body, and investigation is conducted, in Special cases in which investigation cannot be conducted by an officer below the rank of Dy. S.P., by an officer in the rank of Assistant Sub-inspector of police. These are the issues which require immediate attention of the police and the prosecutor. The cases which have been listed today are broadly divided under four categories: I. Witnesses not produced by the prosecution (i) B.A. No. 4708 of 2017 (S.T. No.129/2012); it is stated that no prosecution witness has been examined after 09.09.2014. (ii) B.A. No.2762 of 2017 (S.T. No.341/2016); it is stated that after 10 adjournments from 25.11.2016, 3 prosecution witnesses were examined and, thereafter, trial is pending for examination of the remaining prosecution witnesses. (iii) B.A. No.5402 of 2017 (S.T. No. 172/2014); the case was committed to the Court of sessions on 23.05.2014 and charges were framed on 12.11.2014. Out of 8 prosecution witnesses, 3 were examined by 22.01.2016 and another witness (P.W.4) was examined on 27.05.2016, however, thereafter no witness was produced by the prosecution for more than 1 year. Referring to judgment in Hussain and Another Vrs. Union of India reported in (2017) 5 SCC 702 , Sri A.K. Kashyap, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that speedy trial is implicit under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and denial of this right entitles the petitioner for grant of bail. (iv) B.A. No. 5592 of 2017 (Kamdara P.S. Case No.15/2015); the trial Court while rejecting the prayer for bail has recorded that “even after exhausting all processes, attendance of prosecution witnesses has not been secured”. (v) B.A. No. 2897 of 2017 (S.T. No.294/2012); when the prosecution failed to produce witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed and, now a judgment of acquittal has been recorded. (v) B.A. No. 2897 of 2017 (S.T. No.294/2012); when the prosecution failed to produce witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed and, now a judgment of acquittal has been recorded. (vi) B.A. No. 4460 of 2017 (Special Case No.04/2014); last prosecution witness was examined on 15.09.2015 and thereafter 23 adjournments have been granted, however, remaining prosecution witnesses have not been examined. (vii) B.A. No. 5402 of 2017 (S.T. No.172/2014) and B.A. No. 5574 of 2017 (S.T. No.139/2013); in these cases also there is considerable delay in examining the remaining prosecution witnesses. II. Material witnesses not cited as witness in charge-sheet (i) B.A. No. 4127 of 2017 (S.T. No. 399/2016); the informant has not been made a charge-sheet witness. (ii) B.A. No. 4346 of 2017 (S.T. No. 236/2016); an eye-witness to the occurrence has not been made a charge-sheet witness. III. Post-mortem examination report (i) B.A. No.631 of 2017 (S.T. No.607/2016) and B.A. No. 4218 of 2017 (S.T. No.336/2016); the post-mortem examination reports in these cases do not make any observation, whether there was any external injury on the dead body or not. IV. Investigation by an officer not authorized to conduct investigation (i) B.A. No.4204 of 2017 (Chakradharpur P.S. Case No.123/2016); investigation in this case has been conducted by an officer in the rank of Assistant Sub-inspector of Police whereas, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 mandates that investigation cannot be done by an officer below the rank of Dy. S.P. and in cases where the state government has issued appropriate notification by an officer in the rank of Inspector of police. 2. Way back, Police Order No.47 was issued on 28.09.1950 addressing the concern regarding non appearance of the police officers/investigating officers during the trial. Police Order No.47 reads as under: POLICE ORDER No. 47 “It has been brought to the notice of Government that attendance of the police officers and men in court is not ensured and that processes, etc., against them are treated mechanically. In future the headquarters Deputy Superintendent of Police will be held personally responsible for proper and prompt attention to processes received in police office. A special register should be maintained to indicate the postings, and leave addresses of all Sub-Inspectors, Assistant Sub-Inspectors, Writer Constables of the district and the Head Moharrir under the supervision of the Headquarters Deputy Superintendent of Police will be responsible for keeping it up-to-date. A special register should be maintained to indicate the postings, and leave addresses of all Sub-Inspectors, Assistant Sub-Inspectors, Writer Constables of the district and the Head Moharrir under the supervision of the Headquarters Deputy Superintendent of Police will be responsible for keeping it up-to-date. Likewise, the Sub divisional Police Officer/Circle Inspector should maintain similar registers for officers and men under their charge. This register should invariably be consulted before processes are dealt with to guard against mistakes and delays. (1) Another register should also be maintained in the office of the Superintendent of Police showing, (1) date of receipt of summons, (2) date of dispatch to the persons concerned, (3) returnable date, (4) date of service, and (5) date of return from police office to the issuing Court. A 24 similar register should be maintained by the Sub divisional Police Officers and Circle Inspectors in respect of summonses sent through them. The service return of the summonses shall be sent to the issuing court through the office from which they were received. (2) Considerable dislocation of work and expenditure of travelling allowance are caused when officers are repeatedly summoned to appear in Courts to give evidence after they have been transferred to some other district. Officers proceeding on leave or transfer must themselves give to the Court Sub-Inspectors a list of cases in which they have to give evidence. It should then be the duty of the court officers to arrange for the evidence of such officers being taken on contiguous dates before they leave the district. If this is not possible, such officer should be informed accordingly and they will furnish to the prosecuting officer their addresses. In such cases, the summonses may be sent under registered cover well in advance or telegraphically. Defence lawyers generally desire to examine the investigating officer last. Much harassment is often caused to police officers by the repeated absences of a small number of prosecution witnesses. In such situation prosecuting officers should press for the police officer's evidence being recorded as soon as the majority of the prosecution witnesses have been examined and give the assurance that the investigating officer would be recalled if desired after all the prosecution witnesses have testified. Every police officer summoned to appear in Court shall, if he cannot appear on the date fixed inform the Magistrate the prosecuting officer of the reason of his failure. Every police officer summoned to appear in Court shall, if he cannot appear on the date fixed inform the Magistrate the prosecuting officer of the reason of his failure. This explanation should not be a matter of routine. If the reason for absence is found not satisfactory, the defaulters should be severely dealt with.” It should be the duty of the Court Sub-Inspectors to report to the Superintendent of Police cases of failure on the part of police officers to attend court. Any Court Sub-Inspector/ A.D.P. who fails to carry out these instructions should also be suitably dealt with.” 3. It is not known whether Police Order No.47 has been given effect by Home Department, after creation of the State of Jharkhand. In most of the cases, the official witnesses have not appeared and consequently, the trial has been delayed. 4. The role of Public Prosecutor in a criminal justice system is no less important. Some of the important duties of Public Prosecutor are; he should place the entire evidence before the Court and he should ensure that all important witnesses are produced in the Court, however, he shall always keep in mind that he is not there to secure conviction or acquittal of an accused. Role of Public Prosecutors, who are appointed under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been emphasized in various judgments of the Supreme Court, notable ones are Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vrs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1994) 4 SCC 602 and Shrilekha Vidyarthi (kumari) Vrs. State of U.P. reported in (1991) 1 SCC 212 . Many of the cases listed today indicate failure on the part of Public Prosecutors. 5. In various judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions for initiating departmental proceeding against the erring police officers. In State of Gujarat Vrs. Kishanbhai & Ors. reported in (2014) 5 SCC 108 , specific directions have been issued to all the States for constituting a Standing Committee of senior officers of police and prosecution department for identifying the persons responsible for failure of the prosecution cases. Whether directions issued in Kishanbhai case have been implemented by the State of Jharkhand or not, is not known. In the said case, the Supreme Court has observed as under: “21. The situation referred to above needs to be remedied. For the said purpose, adherence to a simple procedure could serve the objective. Whether directions issued in Kishanbhai case have been implemented by the State of Jharkhand or not, is not known. In the said case, the Supreme Court has observed as under: “21. The situation referred to above needs to be remedied. For the said purpose, adherence to a simple procedure could serve the objective. We accordingly direct that on the completion of the investigation in a criminal case, the prosecuting agency should apply its independent mind, and require all shortcomings to be rectified, if necessary by requiring further investigation. It should also be ensured that the evidence gathered during investigation is truly and faithfully utilised, by confirming that all relevant witnesses and materials for proving the charges are conscientiously presented during the trial of a case. This would achieve two purposes. Only persons against whom there is sufficient evidence, will have to suffer the rigours of criminal prosecution. By following the above procedure, in most criminal prosecutions, the agencies concerned will be able to successfully establish the guilt of the accused. 22. Every acquittal should be understood as a failure of the justice delivery system, in serving the cause of justice. Likewise, every acquittal should ordinarily lead to the inference, that an innocent person was wrongfully prosecuted. It is therefore essential that every State should put in place a procedural mechanism which would ensure that the cause of justice is served, which would simultaneously ensure the safeguard of interest of those who are innocent. In furtherance of the above purpose, it is considered essential to direct the Home Department of every State to examine all orders of acquittal and to record reasons for the failure of each prosecution case. A Standing Committee of senior officers of the police and prosecution departments should be vested with the aforesaid responsibility. The consideration at the hands of the above Committee, should be utilised for crystallising mistakes committed during investigation, and/or prosecution, or both. The Home Department of every State Government will incorporate in its existing training programmes for junior investigation/prosecution officials course-content drawn from the above consideration. The same should also constitute course-content of refresher training programmes for senior investigating/prosecuting officials. The above responsibility for preparing training programmes for officials should be vested in the same Committee of senior officers referred to above. The Home Department of every State Government will incorporate in its existing training programmes for junior investigation/prosecution officials course-content drawn from the above consideration. The same should also constitute course-content of refresher training programmes for senior investigating/prosecuting officials. The above responsibility for preparing training programmes for officials should be vested in the same Committee of senior officers referred to above. Judgments like the one in hand (depicting more than ten glaring lapses in the investigation/prosecution of the case), and similar other judgments, may also be added to the training programmes. The course-content will be reviewed by the above Committee annually, on the basis of fresh inputs, including emerging scientific tools of investigation, judgments of courts, and on the basis of experiences gained by the Standing Committee while examining failures, in unsuccessful prosecution of cases. We further direct, that the above training programme be put in place within 6 months. This would ensure that those persons who handle sensitive matters concerning investigation/ prosecution are fully trained to handle the same. Thereupon, if any lapses are committed by them, they would not be able to feign innocence when they are made liable to suffer departmental action for their lapses. 6. Taking a leaf from the judgement in Kishanbhai case, the competent authority (Home Department) can evolve a mechanism for identifying mistakes committed during the investigation before the case goes for trial. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Director-General of Police, Jharkhand is directed to file an affidavit on the following points: (i) Whether there is any Module for periodic training of the investigating officers; (ii) Whether there is any mechanism for detecting the mistake committed by the investigating officer in course of investigation, before or after a charge-sheet is filed; (iii) Whether judgment in Kishanbhai case has been implemented by the State of Jharkhand or not, and if it has been implemented, to disclose the steps taken; (iv) Whether there is any Module for periodic training of Additional Public Prosecutors and doctors; (v) Whether regulations have been framed or guidelines issued by the Government for taking coercive steps against the investigating officer and the doctors, who inspite of processes issued by the Court, have failed to depose in a criminal case, and (vi) How the matter relating to default by the investigating officer in not transmitting the case-diary in time is dealt with. 8. 8. Except B.A. Nos.4708 of 2017, 4204 of 2017 and 2897 of 2017, all this batch of bail applications listed today shall be listed under the heading “Final disposal” on 08.08.2017. 9. Post B.A. No. 4708 of 2017 on 25.08.2017. Part-heard. 10. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the Director-General of Police, Jharkhand.