New Delhi: The Central Investigation Bureau is likely to get his appearance as a prosecutor who was assessed by the Supreme Court, which on Friday decided to analyze the performance and the level of success of the institution in investigation and prosecution in logical matters.
The court directed the CBI director to place before the number of cases where the agency was accused of being punished at the court of trial and the High Court.
Judge Sanjay Kishan Kiss and M M Sundresh said that it was not enough for the agency just to submit a case and conduct an investigation and but also to ensure that prosecution was successfully carried out.
SC is checking the efficiency demanding the CBI wing as before noted that there is a “story of great negligence in carrying out the task” to produce delays in submitting cases in court and have been looking for responses from their directors.
As an additional lawyer General Sanjay Jain, appearing for agencies, argues that in hostility litigation systems such as India, the level of success in litigation must be considered only one factor in determining efficiency, the bench said that the same benchmark followed throughout the world and there was no reason that It should not be applied to the CBI.
“We want to have data on the case handled by the CBI.
How many cases are demanded by the CBI, the time period was postponed in the trial court and what the success rate of the CBI in the trial court and the High Court.
We want to see the level of success of agency,” Bench said.
The bench said the efficiency of the prosecutor agent was determined based on the case that was brought to a logical conclusion and the time taken by the agency, and gave a four-week time of the CBI director to submit data to be analyzed by the court on the next hearing date.
“The world of assessment is being carried out on the basis of the success rate.
If you cannot maintain a prosecution case, what the need to submit a case and probe.
The success rate is very important and must be considered,” Bench told ASG who tried to persuade the court to not follow the level of success.
The court also said that there were other ways to resolve disputes such as supplies that could be passed if the agency could not demand successfully.
The court initiated the exercises to check the efficiency of the CBI while hearing the appeal of the CBI submitted after a untreated postponement of 542 days.
“The Aferesid Prima Facie shows clearly gross inability in the Legal Department of the Central Investigation Bureau (CBI) which raises serious questions from its efficacy to demand the case.” The bench said when deciding to check the problem that hindered the function of the Premier investigation body.
In addition to finding a case record in the trial, the bench also directs the CBI director to submit Affidavit which states the steps taken by it to improve the function of agency and system what must be done to facilitate the right legal prosecution function.
“What is the way to strengthen the agency prosecutor’s wings.
What are the obstacles.
We want to know what steps you have taken to strengthen the wings.
One of the bottlenecks is the absence of the number of workers needed.
You must arrange your home in sequence,” Bench said.
The agency, beforehand, tried to justify the late archiving of the attraction in the field that his legal department was burdened because he was dealing with 95 cases but the bench refused to accept the explanation.
“First, the number is not extraordinary and second, this is for the Petitioner (CBI) to receive calls about how many people are required to manage their affairs.
It seems that the file also lied with a general lawyer in general for about two months,” said the bench .