a bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kouli And MM Sundresh said that it is not enough for the agency to just register the case and investigate, but also ensure that the prosecution is conducted successfully. NS scheduled caste The prosecution is probing the efficiency of the CBI’s wing as it had earlier mentioned that there was a “saga of gross negligence in the discharge of duties”, resulting in inordinate delay in registering cases in the courts and sought a response from its director.
as Additional Advocate General Sanjay JainAppearing for the agency, argued that in an adverse litigation system like India, the success rate in litigation should be considered as one of the factors determining efficiency, the bench said, adding that the same criterion is followed across the world. And there was no reason why it should not be applied to CBI.
“We want data about the cases being handled by the CBI. How many cases CBI is prosecuting, time period for which cases are pending in lower courts and what is the success rate of CBI in lower courts and high courts. We want to see what the agency’s success rate is.
The bench said the efficiency of a prosecuting agency is determined on the basis of the cases it brings to a logical conclusion and the time taken by the agency, and gave the CBI director four weeks to file the data, whose court will be analyzed by Next date of hearing.
“The worldwide assessment is being done on the basis of success rate. If you cannot maintain the case of the prosecution then what is the need to register a case and investigate. Success rate is very important and should be considered AG Who tried to persuade the court not to follow the success rate. The court also said that there are other methods of settling the dispute such as petition bargaining, which can be resorted to if the agency is not able to prosecute successfully.
The court began the exercise of examining the efficiency of the CBI while hearing the appeal of the CBI, which was filed after an inordinate delay of 542 days. “Above Prima facie This clearly shows the gross incompetence in the legal department of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) which raises serious questions on its efficacy to prosecute cases. The bench had decided to examine the issues which were obstructing the functioning of the premier investigating agency.
Besides seeking the record of the cases under trial, the bench also directed the CBI director to file an affidavit stating the steps taken by him to enhance the functioning of the agency and to facilitate proper functioning of the prosecution. Which system should be implemented for legal matters.
“What is the way to strengthen the prosecution wing of the agency. What are the obstacles? We would like to know what steps you have taken to strengthen the wing. One of the constraints is the lack of manpower in the required numbers. You have to organize your house,” the bench said.
The agency had earlier tried to justify the delay in filing the appeal on the ground that its legal department was overburdened as it was dealing with 95 cases but the bench refused to accept the explanation.
“Firstly, this number is not extraordinary and secondly it is for the petitioner (CBI) to decide how many persons are required to manage their cases. The file also appears to have been lying with the Additional Solicitor General for almost two months.
.