a review of the public prosecution system in madhya...

A Review of the Public Prosecution

System in Madhya Pradesh

Report

Indrani Barpujari, Ph.D.

2019

Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Good Governance

& Policy Analysis

A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya

Pradesh

Report


2019

Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Good Governance & Policy Analysis, Bhopal

An Autonomous Institute of the Government of Madhya Pradesh

Special Guidance

Shri R. Parasuram, Director General, AIGGPA

Shri Mangesh Tyagi, Principal Advisor, Centre for Governance

Project Team

Study coordinated by


Advisor, Centre for Governance

Inputs from the districts

(under the Chief Minister's Young Professionals for Development Programme, in

alphabetical order)

Abhishek Mishra, Research Associate, Balaghat

Geetika Mehta, Research Associate, Panna

Hriday Khattry, Research Associate, Shajapur

Jibin G. Jose, Research Associate, Umaria

Praveen Chouksey, Research Associate, Gwalior

Rahul Rajak, Research Associate, Bhopal

Sachin Kumar, Research Associate, Rajgarh

Vinod Chahande, Research Associate, Vidisha

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. i

Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Objectives................................................................................................................................ 1

1.3. Methodology and Limitations ................................................................................................. 2

1.4. Organisation of the Report ..................................................................................................... 3

Chapter II: An Overview of Public Prosecution ....................................................................................... 4

2.1. Roles, Responsibilities and Expectations ..................................................................................... 4

2.2. Legal Provisions Governing Public Prosecution in India .............................................................. 6

2.2.1. Appointment of Public Prosecutors ...................................................................................... 7

2.2.2. Withdrawal from Prosecution............................................................................................... 9

Chapter III: Public Prosecution in Madhya Pradesh: Legal Provisions and the Current Institutional

Structure ............................................................................................................................................... 12

3.1. State Level Legal Provisions ....................................................................................................... 12

3.1.1. Amendments to the Relevant Provisions of the Cr.P.C. ..................................................... 12

3.1.2. The Madhya Pradesh Public Prosecution (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 1991 ... 14

3.2. Current Institutional Framework in Madhya Pradesh ............................................................... 16

Chapter IV: An Overview of the Performance of the Directorate of Public Prosecution in Madhya

Pradesh ................................................................................................................................................. 19

4.1. Parameters for Assessing Performance ..................................................................................... 19

4.2. State Level Performance in 2015-17 .......................................................................................... 20

Chapter V: An Assessment of the Performance of District Prosecution Offices in Select Eight Districts

of Madhya Pradesh ............................................................................................................................... 29

5.1. Cases Pertaining to ‘Heinous and Sensational’ Crimes in Select Districts ................................. 29

5.1.1. Case Load, Disposal Rate and Pendency ............................................................................. 29

5.1.2. Convictions, Acquittals and Withdrawals in Disposed Off Cases on ‘Heinous and

Sensational’ Crimes ....................................................................................................................... 32

4.2. Cases in the District/ Sessions Court in Select Districts ............................................................. 33


4.2.2. Convictions, Acquittals and Withdrawals in Disposed Off Cases in District/ Sessions Court

...................................................................................................................................................... 38

4.3. Performance at Tehsil Level in Select Districts .......................................................................... 39


4.3.2. Convictions, Acquittals and Withdrawals in Disposed Off Cases at Tehsil Level ................ 42

ii

Chapter VI: Enhancing ‘Performance ‘of the Public Prosecution: Initiatives and Challenges .............. 44

6.1. Initiatives to Enhance Performance ........................................................................................... 44

6.1.1. Prosecutor Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System ............................................ 44

6.1.2. Enhancing Capabilities and Training Needs Addressed ...................................................... 45

6.1.3. Launch of E-Journal The Prosecutor .................................................................................... 46

6.1.4. Using IT for Better Management ........................................................................................ 47

6.2. Challenges in the Way of Optimal ‘Performance’ ...................................................................... 47

6.2.1. Remuneration and Scope for Career Advancement ........................................................... 47

6.2.2. Work Load and Other Work Related Challenges ................................................................ 47

6.2.3. Office Infrastructure and Facilities ...................................................................................... 48

6.2.4. Security Concerns................................................................................................................ 49

6.2.5. Access to Computer, Internet, Updated Case Materials .................................................... 49

Chapter VII: Conclusion and the Way Ahead ........................................................................................ 50

References ............................................................................................................................................ 53

Annexure 1: Staff Strength in Select Eight District Prosecution Offices at the Time of Study ............. 54

Annexure II: Cases Pertaining to Identified Heinous and Sensational Crimes in Districts .................... 58

Annexure III: Cases (IPC and others) presented in District/ Sessions Court ......................................... 60

Annexure-IV: Tehsil Level Cases of Districts ......................................................................................... 62

Annexure-V: Interview Guide/ Broad Cues for In-depth Interviews .................................................... 63

Executive Summary

An important component of the criminal justice administration worldwide as well as in India

(in addition to the police and the courts) is the public prosecutor tasked with the role of

representing the state and presenting the evidence gathered by the police to the criminal

court and ensuring justice to the victim. The Supreme Court of India in a slew of judgements

as well as the Law Commission of India in a number of reports have consistently held that

public prosecutors are ‘Ministers of Justice’ whose primary duty is to serve the cause of

justice owing a duty of fairness to the accused as well. It is also well recognized and

reiterated through judgements that ‘independence’ of the prosecutor’s function is central

to the rule of law with the need for public prosecutors to act independently from the police

and the obligation upon governments to ensure that public prosecutors are independent of

the executive and are able to perform their duties without interference.

The basic provisions with respect to public prosecution in India are laid down in the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, with criminal law and criminal procedure being subjects

on the Concurrent list, states have also legislated on the area leading to the adoption of

different prosecution models across the country.

In Madhya Pradesh, there is an independent prosecution system- the Directorate of Public

Prosecution, created in 1987 as an entity separate from the Police while under the

Department of Home. The present administrative arrangement includes the Directorate

with its headquarters in Bhopal and District Prosecution Offices in all district headquarters

and also a tehsil level presence.

Objectives

The broad objective of the study is to critically evaluate and review the current system in

the state (with special focus on select eight districts) in terms of the requirements of

‘effectiveness’, capabilities, and ‘independence’/‘autonomy’. The specific objectives are as

follows:

(i) to understand the 'effectiveness' of the public prosecution system on the basis of a

number of parameters such case load, cases disposal rate, pendency, nature of disposal

(convictions vis-a-vis acquittals) of the state as a whole and select District Prosecution

Offices for the last three years;

(ii) to analyse the roles and responsibilities in line with the relevant legal provisions as well

as institutional capability for the state as a whole and the select districts in particular;

(iii) to assess the degree of 'independence‘/ ‘autonomy’ of the public prosecutors in

performing their duties;

A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh

ii

(iv) Looking at the gaps and spaces for reform and arriving at policy recommendations.

Methodology and Limitations

The methodology being adopted for the purpose of this study involves a number of tools

such as legal analysis, desk review, analysis of the ‘performance’ related data for three years

(2015, 16 and 17) and in-depth interviews for the purpose of arriving at a holistic

understanding. The study has attempted an analysis of ‘performance’ on the basis of

standard parameters and institutional capabilities of the Directorate in general and select

eight District Prosecution Offices- Balaghat, Bhopal, Gwalior, Panna, Rajgarh, Shajapur,

Umaria and Vidisha. The major limitation of the study stems from the fact that consistently

uniform data under the different heads for the entire time period covered by the study in all

the select districts has not been available.

Legal provisions Governing Prosecution (In India and Madhya Pradesh)

Section 225 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) provides that in every trial

before a Court of Session, the prosecution shall be conducted by a Public Prosecutor with

section 226 providing that a trial shall commence with the Prosecutor describing the

charge/s against the accused. Section 24(1) deals with the appointment of Public

Prosecutors to the High Court while with respect to the district/ session courts, section 24(3)

empowers the state government to appoint Public Prosecutors for each district as well as

Additional Public Prosecutors. Two methods of appointment of Public Prosecutors to the

same are provided in the Cr.P.C. with the option open to the state government to adopt any

method. Section 24 (4) provides for one method of appointment to the effect that the

District Magistrate shall, in consultation with the Sessions Judge, prepare, a panel of names

of persons, who are, in his opinion fit to be appointed as Public Prosecutor or Additional

Public Prosecutors for the district. Section 24 (6) provides for an alternative mode of

appointment which is through the creation of a regular cadre of prosecuting officers.

Section 25 deals with the appointment of Assistant Public Prosecutors to the effect that as

per sub-section (1), the State Government shall appoint in every district one or more

Assistant Public Prosecutors for conducting prosecutions in the courts of Magistrates.

Section 25A of the Cr.P.C. provides the legal basis for the establishment of a Directorate of

Prosecution by the state government consisting of a Director of Prosecution and as many

Deputy Directors of Prosecution as it thinks fit. As per section 25A (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 (sub-

section 2).


iii

The above provisions along with the amendments brought about by the Government of

Madhya Pradesh along with the Rules enacted by it to give effect to these provisions govern

the public prosecution system in Madhya Pradesh.

Through the M.P. Act 21 of 1995, an amendment was made to the CR.P.C. to the effect that

a sub-section (6-A) was added to sub-section 6 of section 24 (ii) with the latter dealing with

the creation of a regular cadre of prosecuting officers (the eligibility requirement of a

prosecuting officer being not less than seven years of experience as a practicing advocate).

The effect of this amendment is that in Madhya Pradesh, both the two methods of

appointment of public prosecutors at the district level- through a regular cadre as well as

through a panel proposed by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions Judge

are legally valid while adhering to the eligibility requirement of not less than seven years as

an advocate in practice.

Another major amendment to the CR.P.C. applicable to Madhya Pradesh was effected

through the Code of Criminal Procedure (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2013 which

sought to substitute section 25A of the principal Act dealing with the establishment of a

state level Directorate of Prosecution. Sub-section (1) of amended Section 25A provides that

the State Government may establish a Directorate of Prosecution consisting of a Director of

Prosecution and as many Additional Directors of Prosecution, Joint Directors of Prosecution,

Deputy Directors of Prosecution and Assistant Director of Prosecution and such other posts

as it thinks fit. Sub-section (2) of the state level amendment provides that the posts of

Director of Prosecution, Additional Directors of Prosecution, Joint Directors of Prosecution,

Deputy Directors of Prosecution and Assistant Directors of Prosecution and other posts shall

be filled in accordance with the Madhya Pradesh Public Prosecution (Gazetted) Service

Recruitment Rules, 1991. The said Rules provide the legal basis for creation of a separate

cadre/ service of prosecuting officers in Madhya Pradesh. Rule 6 provides for three types of

recruitment: direct recruitment by selection; by promotion of the members of the service;

by transfer of persons who hold in a substantive capacity such posts in such service as may

be specified in Schedule-II. Schedule III of the Rules deal with the eligibility requirement for

appointment to the post of Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer (a degree in law

from any recognized university or equivalent and persons possessing First Division or 2 years

practice at Bar) while Rules 13 and 14 deal with appointment by promotion and conditions

of eligibility for promotion respectively. Apart from the post of Assistant District Public

Prosecution Officer which is through direct appointment, all the other posts are 100%

through promotion of the members of the service. However, in case of the post of Director

and Joint Director, in addition to promotion of the members of the service, there is also the

option available that if there is no suitable officer in the cadre, then the post could be filled

through deputation from IAS/IPS/Higher Judicial Service (Schedule II of the Rules). This is in

variance with the provisions of the central enactment which expressly lays down the

eligibility requirement for the post of Director/ Deputy Director as not less than ten years


iv

practice as an advocate. Further, such appointment is to be made with the concurrence of

the Chief Justice of the High Court which is not provided for in the State Rules.

The Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh

As of 2017-18, the total sanctioned strength of the Directorate of Prosecution is 2057 of

which 1231 are filled indicating a vacancy of about 40%. Taking cognizance of the need for

strengthening public prosecution, the state government has from time to time increased the

number of sanctioned posts from State to tehsil level. At the district level, the total number

of sanctioned posts is highest for Bhopal and Gwalior at 86 and 73 respectively; in other

districts, it ranges between 20 (Panna) and 33 (Shajapur). Gwalior District Prosecution Office

is working with staff strength of about 98% followed by Vidisha operating on 74% of its total

strength and Bhopal at 70%. Rajagarh is operating at about 67% of its total strength

followed by Panna District Prosecution Office at 65% of its total strength, Shajapur at 64%,

Balaghat at 60% and Umaria at 59%.

Performance at the State Level in 2015-17

An attempt has been made to arrive at a tentative assessment of the performance of public

prosecution in Madhya Pradesh adopting a holistic approach- taking into consideration the

parameters which the Directorate itself employs to review its performance such as case

load, pendency, disposal and conviction.

In Madhya Pradesh, special attention is being paid in recent times to dealing with and

disposing cases speedily and ensuring that the guilty are being punished particularly in the

context of identified ‘heinous and sensational’ crimes such as murder, rape. An analysis of

the disposed cases with respect to ‘heinous and sensational’ crimes for 2015-17 shows that

disposed cases have steadily risen from 203 in 2015 to 303 in 2016 (an almost 50% increase

in a single year) which further increased upto 459 in 2017, thereby showing an overall

increase by 126% during this time period. This is reflective of increased pressure to

prosecute and dispose off such cases. Convictions secured are fairly high-72% in 2015 which

fell to 66% in 2016 which again rose to 71% in 2017.

With respect to cases under the Indian Penal Code, in 2015, there were 436038 IPC cases

pending in Sessions Courts across the state to which another 22704 cases were added

bringing the total number of cases being prosecuted to a whopping 458742 of which 5%

could be disposed. For 2016, there were 605141 IPC cases pending (in Sessions and

Magistrate’ Court) to which 101952 new cases were taken up, leading to a huge 707093

cases for the year of which 20% could be disposed. In 2017, the volume of pendency at the

beginning of the year for IPC cases in Sessions Courts was comparatively less at 44513 to

which a total of 19392 cases were taken up bringing up the total to 63905 of which 21%

were disposed. The conviction rate has been more or less consistent at 23% in 2015 for IPC

cases in Sessions Court, 23% for IPC cases in Sessions and Magistrate’ Court in 2016 and 25%


v

for IPC cases in Sessions Court. The acquittal rate, on the other hand, shows that from 15%

in 2015 and 18% in 2016, there has been a sharp rise to 60% (indicative of weakness of the

prosecution case which could be due to various reasons).

Similarly, there is a heavy case load with respect to other legislation (other than IPC): a total

load of 92772 such cases in 2015 of which 20% were disposed; a total case load of 267402

for both Sessions and Magistrate’s Courts in 2016 of which 34% were disposed. In 2017,

22825 cases under other legislation in Sessions Courts were pending and 13056 fresh cases

were taken up leading to case load of 35881 of which 24% were disposed. In 2015, the

conviction rate was very high- 73% for cases under other legislation in Sessions Courts

across the state. In 2016, the conviction rate is a mere 8% for cases under other legislation

both in the Sessions and Magistrate’s Courts. The conviction rate came up to 58% in 2017

for cases under other legislation in the Sessions Courts. The acquittal rate, on the other

hand, was 11% in 2015 (Sessions Court), 9% for both Sessions and Magistrate’s Courts and

rose significantly to 58% in 2017 (Sessions Courts).

Data on cases in subordinate/tehsil level courts is only available from 2017 onwards as

documented in the Annual Administrative Report 2017-18. For 2017, the Directorate had a

total case load of 621914 under IPC, 161162 cases under all legislation instituted by the

police and 47762 cases instituted by departments other than the Police. In 2017, there is a

disposal rate of 23% for IPC cases, 53% disposal for cases under all other legislation

instituted by the Police and disposal rate of 89% for cases instituted by Departments under

than the Police. In IPC cases, conviction rate was 20% and acquittal was 15%. 78% conviction

rate was secured in cases under all other legislation instituted by the Police and 88% in

cases instituted by departments other than the Police.

Performance at the District Level

Despite the fact that uniform, comparable data for the three years in question-2015, 16 and

17 are not available in all districts, an attempt was made to assess the performance of

District Prosecution Offices in the eight districts- Balaghat, Bhopal, Gwalior, Panna, Rajgarh,

Shajapur, Umaria and Vidisha on the basis of the aforesaid standard parameters.

With respect to ‘heinous and sensational crimes’, for the years 2015-17, the heaviest case

load has been in Bhopal at 202 cases followed by Gwalior at 162 cases and Vidisha at 110

cases. Despite the heavy case load, Bhopal had a disposal rate of 17% in 2015 which

dropped to 15% in 2016 and which shows improvement in 2017 to 25%. Gwalior has shown

a sharp downward trend (from 26% in 2015 to 18% in 2016 and a very sharp fall to just 1%

in 2017). Vidisha had a disposal rate of 13% in 2015 which rose to 17% in 2016 followed by a

sharp dip to 4% in 2017. The conviction rate for the three years together is the highest in

Shajapur district at 88% followed by Bhopal which is 76% and Vidisha at 64%. In Umaria, it is

about 43% while in Gwalior, it is the lowest at 35%. Acquittals have been the highest in

Gwalior district at 65%. With respect to cases taken up in the District/ Sessions Court


vi

including cases covered under the Indian Penal Code and all other cases, Bhopal has the

highest case load which has steadily grown higher over the three years under consideration

with the second highest case load being in Gwalior followed by Balaghat. The highest

number of cases disposed off for 2015-17 in total has been in Bhopal at 40047 of which

conviction has been secured in around 41% for the three years together. The second highest

number of cases disposed off for the same period has been in Gwalior at 23025 cases- of

these, conviction has been secured in 32% of the cases. A few districts show a very high

acquittal rate particularly Umaria, Shajapur, Rajgarh and Panna indicating that that these

cases could not be sustained in court.

The total case load in the tehsil courts for three years together is highest in Shajapur with a

total of 19006 cases followed by Gwalior with 18530. The next highest case load is in Bhopal

with 9228 cases with Umaria having the lowest case burden at 5371. Shajapur had the

highest number of total disposed off cases for the period at 6816 cases followed by Bhopal

with 2990 cases disposed off at the tehsil level. The conviction rate for the period is the

highest in Umaria at 89.9% followed by Shajapur at about 61%. In Bhopal, the conviction

rate for the three years together is about 50%. In Gwalior, it is much low at about 30%.

Acquittals at the tehsil level are comparatively higher in Gwalior at about 18% followed by

Shajapur at about 16% and about 15% in Umaria.

Initiatives to Enhance Performance and Challenges

A number of initiatives have been taken up in recent times to enhance performance; chief

among them include the launch of a Prosecutor Performance Evaluation and Monitoring

System; an albeit ‘controversial’ reward scheme to ensure speedy trial and secure

convictions; recognition of other non-sentence related achievements to qualify for ‘Pride of

Prosecution’ every month, provision of better IT facilities etc. While recruitment through a

fairly rigorous competitive examination in recent times is believed to have substantially

ensured recruitment of well qualified public prosecutors at the entry level, capabilities of

prosecutors are further enhanced through a basic foundational training course as well as

many in-service training programmes at national and state level institutes.

However, there are numerous challenges which come in the way of ‘optimum’ performance

and in interview with prosecution officers at different levels, it could be learnt that these

challenges include dissatisfaction with the remuneration received and limited scope for

career advancement; case load and other work related challenges compounded by duties at

multiple courts; inadequate office infrastructure and facilities; security concerns, lack or

limited access to computer, updated case materials etc.

Conclusion and Recommendations

In conclusion, it may be surmised that the Directorate of Prosecution, Government of

Madhya Pradesh fares quite well in terms of independence/ autonomy, performance as well

as institutional capabilities. Madhya Pradesh was one of the first states to constitute an


vii

independent Directorate of Prosecution separate from the police. Also, through the state

level amendments, the state has ensured a regular cadre of prosecuting officials which is

believed to be central to ensuring ‘independence’ as well as quality. Further, in interview

with prosecutors at different levels, it could be understood that prosecutors in the state

have a reasonable measure of autonomy/ independence and lack of interference in taking

up the cases in the way in which justice demands. As far as performance/ effectiveness is

concerned, it is seen from the study that at all levels and for all kinds of cases, the public

prosecutors have a very heavy case load owing to pendencies from before as well as a large

number of cases taken up for prosecution every year. Despite the heavy burden, there is a

constant focus to have as many cases disposed off in a particular year. Apart from the

standard parameters based on ‘quantity’, there is some recognition internationally that

ensuring ‘quality’ of prosecution is also pertinent. In this regard, the Directorate of

Prosecution, Government of Madhya Pradesh is at par with the international guidelines

ensuring direct recruitment of well qualified professionals at entry level and filling up the

posts at the higher level through promotion; also equipping the public prosecutors through

basic foundational course and training throughout their careers particularly focused on

equipping them to handle technology related and other crimes better in tune with the latest

developments. The Directorate and the District Prosecution Offices are well equipped in

terms of competent and trained prosecutors at all levels; thus, reflecting institutional

capability of a very high order. However, with the Directorate as a whole and District

Prosecution Offices not working at full sanctioned strength further compounded by an

increasing case load particularly in some districts, the existing staff find themselves

stretched way beyond. Also, duties in multiple courts, inadequate infrastructure and

facilities and other challenges act as impediments to optimum performance. It is also

laudable that the Directorate of Prosecution has endeavoured to use IT to the maximum for

better management including at district and tehsil level though much more needs to be

done.

Thus, in conclusion, it emerges that public prosecution in Madhya Pradesh fulfills many of

the internationally and nationally accepted benchmarks/ yardsticks and as laid down by the

Courts. A few recommendations may be made to further ensure that public prosecution is

truly able to serve the cause of justice and uphold the rule of law in the state which are as

below:

(i) While performance appraisal systems could be geared to speed up disposal and

increase convictions, at the same time, a point system for rewarding death

sentences could be at odds with the ends of justice and incongruent with

accepted legal principles. Such a scheme as introduced a few years ago may need

careful reconsideration in the light of Supreme Court judgements and the

recommendations of the Law Commission in this regard. Such a system could

create “a perverse incentive by encouraging prosecutors to cut corners and

undermine the defence’s case” (Atreya, 2018).


viii

(ii) A case may be made for increasing sanctioned strength in the Directorate in

general and certain District Prosecution Offices in particular which are saddled

with a heavy case burden. At the minimum, existing vacancies at all levels need

to be addressed on priority basis. Across all District Prosecution Offices,

prosecutors felt constrained by lack of support staff which needs to be

addressed.

(iii) While the prevailing legal framework in the state ensures independence of the

prosecution from the police, a coordination mechanism needs to be worked out

at the Departmental level (Home being the parent department for both) to

ensure that a legally full-proof case could be presented in court by the

prosecutor and successfully defended.

(iv) As opined by many prosecutors, a heavy case burden in multiple courts along

with lack of official conveyance facilities come in the way of optimum

performance and poor preparation of cases. Many prosecutors felt that rather

than assigning them duties in multiple courts, they would be able to function

more effectively if they were each assigned all cases in a single court; an idea

which may be worth considering.

(v) With most public prosecutors expressing dissatisfaction with the remuneration

and scope for career advancement, the government needs to carefully look into

the HR needs to ensure optimum performance.

(vi) Enhancing the infrastructure of the district and tehsil level prosecution offices

need to be taken up in a phased manner to ensure that public prosecutors across

the state are provided a certain modicum of facilities to be able to better address

the demands of their profession.

(vii) Last but not the least, it is the duty of the state government to ensure the safety

and security of public prosecutors and their families and adequate resources

would need to be deployed to ensure the same particularly when prosecutors

are handling sensitive and controversial cases and where a threat is perceived.

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1. Statement of the Problem

An important component of the criminal justice administration worldwide as well as in India

(in addition to the police and the courts) is the public prosecutor tasked with the role of

representing the state and presenting the evidence gathered by the police to the criminal

court and ensuring justice to the victim. The rationale being that all crime (offences codified

as such in statutes) committed by an individual or groups against others are deemed to be

committed against society and consequently, state takes action to prosecute the accused on

behalf of, and in the interest of society. As observed by the Law Commission (2006), she/he

has "duties not only to the state and to the public to bring criminals to justice but also duties

to the accused so that innocent persons are not convicted". With the requirement of

fairness and objectivity in discharging duties, the public prosecutor should ideally be

independent of the executive and all external influences, also independent of the police and

the investigation process.

The basic provisions with respect to public prosecution in India are laid down in the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, with criminal law and criminal procedure (including all

matters included in the Code) being subjects on the Concurrent list, states have also

legislated on the area leading to the adoption of different prosecution models across the

country. In Madhya Pradesh, there is an independent prosecution system- the Directorate

of Public Prosecution, created in 1987 as an entity separate from the Police Department.

The present administrative arrangement includes the Directorate with its headquarters in

Bhopal and District Prosecution Offices in all district headquarters and also a tehsil level

presence. The Directorate is under the Department of Home, Government of Madhya

Pradesh.

Considering the centrality of an effective, just and fair public prosecution in ensuring the

rule of law and good governance in the state, this study has been taken up with the goal of

reviewing the existing system in Madhya Pradesh and making suitable policy

recommendations to enhance it.

1.2. Objectives

The broad objective of the study is to critically evaluate and review the current system in

the state (with special focus on select eight districts) in terms of the requirements of

‘effectiveness’, capabilities, and ‘independence’/‘autonomy’. The specific objectives are as

follows:

(i) to understand the 'effectiveness' of the public prosecution system on the basis of

a number of parameters such case load, cases disposal rate, pendency, nature of


2

disposal (convictions vis-a-vis acquittals) of the state as a whole and select

District Prosecution Offices for the last three years;

(ii) Understanding the roles and responsibilities in line with the relevant legal

provisions as well as institutional capability for the state as a whole and the

select districts in particular;

(iii) Assessing the degree of 'independence‘/ ‘autonomy’ of the public prosecutors in

performing their duties on the basis of studying the functioning of the system as

well as opinions and perceptions of functionaries interviewed;

(iv) Looking at the gaps and spaces for reform and arriving at policy

recommendations.

1.3. Methodology and Limitations

The methodology being adopted for the purpose of this study involves a number of tools

such as legal analysis, desk review, data analysis and in-depth interviews for the purpose of

arriving at a holistic understanding.

Analysis of the relevant national and state level laws and judgements of Courts; review of

the various reports of the Law Commission, Malimath Committee and others dealing with

this area as well as academic literature on the subject and international best practices and

guidelines (particularly those of the United Nations and International Association of

Prosecutors) have constituted an important part of the methodology.

The study has attempted an analysis of 'performance' through standard parameters and

institutional capabilities on the basis of available data. For this purpose, the Annual Reports

of the Directorate of Prosecution for the last few years and field level data in the select eight

districts- Balaghat, Bhopal, Gwalior, Panna, Rajgarh, Shajapur, Umaria and Vidisha have

been relied upon. These districts have been chosen with a view to including districts at

different levels of performance on the basis of preliminary data obtained from the MP

Public Prosecution website (http://www.eprosecution.mp.gov.in/).

This has been substantiated by in-depth interviews based on a loosely structured/ open

ended questionnaire with about 32 public prosecutors at different levels.

Figure 1: Methodology

The major limitation of the study stems from the fact that consistently uniform data under

the different heads for the entire time period covered by the study in all the select districts

has not been available. This is particularly with respect to earlier years owing to poor

Desk Review and Legal Analysis

Data AnalysisIn-depth

Interviews


3

record-keeping at the district level. This has led to difficulties in arriving at an accurate

comparative picture on all fronts.

1.4. Organisation of the Report

Chapter I is the introductory chapter which outlines the problem to be addressed through

the study, states the specific objectives, elucidates the methodology to be followed and the

limitations of the study.

Chapter II presents an overview of public prosecution in general, throwing light on the roles,

responsibilities and expectations from the office of public prosecution as elucidated in

various judgements and authoritative reports and also focuses on the particular context of

India and the system prevailing in the different states.

Chapter III provides a glimpse into the public prosecution system in Madhya Pradesh- the

state level legal provisions which govern it and the current institutional system.

Chapter IV provides an overview of the performance of the Directorate of Prosecution in

general for three years-2015-17 on the basis of standard parameters like case load, disposal

rate, pendency, convictions and acquittals.

In Chapter V, the performance of select eight districts is assessed on the same parameters

dealing with cases both in the district/ sessions courts and tehsil courts.

Chapter VI throws light on some of the initiatives taken up by the Directorate to improve

‘performance’ as well as identified challenges which come in the way.

Chapter VII is the final chapter which attempts to draw conclusions from the study and offer

recommendations.

Chapter II: An Overview of Public Prosecution

2.1. Roles, Responsibilities and Expectations

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and International Association of Prosecutors

(2006) state that “a public prosecutor has the broader obligation to uphold the rule of

law, with an attendant ethical and professional duty to ensure that a person accused

of a crime receives a fair trial. Where prosecutors fail to fulfil these obligations, miscarriages

of justice ranging from malicious prosecutions to wrongful convictions result, damaging

the integrity of the justice system and violating the public’s trust”. This is in line with

Guideline 12 of the UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors (1990) which provides

that “Prosecutors shall, in accordance with the law, perform their duties fairly,

consistently and expeditiously, and respect and protect human dignity and uphold human

rights, thus contributing to ensuring due process and the smooth functioning of the

criminal justice system.”

The role of the public prosecutor in the criminal justice system has been explicitly defined by

C. Humphreys, a celebrated public prosecutor holding the prestigious position of Senior

Treasury Counsel at the Central Criminal Court in England where he prosecuted with

considerable effect many of the most famous English criminal trials in the 1940s and 50s in

the following words:

“The Prosecutor has a duty to the State, to the Accused and to the Court. The Prosecutor is

at all times a minister of justice, though seldom so described. It is not the duty of the

prosecution counsel to secure a conviction, nor should any prosecutor even feel pride or

satisfaction in the mere fact of success. Still less should he boast of the percentage of

convictions secured over a period. The duty of the prosecutor, as I see it, is to present to the

tribunal a precisely formulated case for the Crown against the accused, and to call evidence

in support of it. If a defence is raised incompatible with his case, he will cross-examine

dispassionately and with perfect fairness, the evidence so called, and then address the

tribunal in reply, if he has the right, to suggest that his case is proved. It is not rebuff to his

prestige if he fails to convince the tribunal of the prisoner’s guilt. His attitude should be so

objective that he is, so far as humanly possible, indifferent to the result. It may be argued

that it is for the tribunal alone, whether magistrate or jury, to decide guilt or innocence”

(1955, p.740-41).

In the seminal case of Babu v. State of Kerala (1984 Cr LJ 499), the Kerala High Court

categorically held that “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 playing before the Court all relevant aspects

of the case. They are not there to see the innocent sent to the gallows; they are also not

there to see the culprits escape”. In a similar vein, the Delhi High Court observed in Prabhu


5

Dayal v. State (1986 (10) DRJ 147) that “the prosecutor has to be fair in the presentation of

the prosecution case. He must not suppress or keep back from the court evidence relevant

to the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. He must present a complete

picture and not one sided picture. He must not be partial to the prosecution or to the

accused. He has to be fair to both sides in the presentation of the case.”

The Law Commission of India in its 197th Report on Public Prosecutor’s Appointments (2006)

observed that the ‘independence’ of the prosecutor’s function stands at the heart of the

rule of law citing a slew of judgements from India as well as abroad to reiterate that the

public prosecutor has to act independently from the police, that governments must ensure

that public prosecutors are independent of the executive and are able to perform their

duties without interference (laid down in Balvant Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1977 SC 2265,

Subhash Chander v. State AIR 1980 SC 423 and other cases). The fact that the public

prosecutor is “…a limb of the judicative process” and not an “extension of the executive”

nor “a flunkey of political power” was laid down by Justice Krishna Iyer in the Supreme

Court in Subhas Chander v State (AIR 1980 SC 423).

While the need for enhanced coordination between the police and prosecutor is perceived

as vital for an effective and efficient prosecution, it has been recognized that it cannot be at

the cost of independence of the public prosecution1. The Supreme Court in S.B. Shahane v.

State of Maharshtra AIR 1995 SC 1628 held that “it is ultimately, suggested in unequivocal

terms that the machinery of criminal justice though comprised of Investigation Department

and the Prosecuting Department, there should be complete separation between them. The

object of such separation suggested is obviously to see that the officers of the Police

Department who will have investigated the cases to be prosecuted in courts shall have no

manner of control or influence over the prosecutors who conduct the cases in courts based

on the investigations made by the Police Department”. This was also the position of the

Apex Court in its judgement in R. Sarala v. T.S. Velu AIR 2000 SC 1731 held that (also cited by

the Law Commission in support of its position) that the public prosecutor must not involve

himself in investigation of the case. In this case, the Apex Court laid down that

“investigation and prosecution are two different facets in the administration of criminal

justice. The role of the public prosecutor is inside the Court, whereas the role of

investigation is outside the Court…Involving the public prosecutor in investigation is

unjudicious as well as pernicious in law…” This position has also been expounded by the Law

Commission (2006) as well as by the albeit controversial Committee on Reforms of Criminal

Justice System (2003) under the chairmanship of Dr. Justice V.S. Malimath with the latter

emphasizing that the independence of the Prosecutor cannot be undermined by making it

subordinate to the police hierarchy.

1 For quite some time, the role of the prosecution in investigation was subject to much debate with the need being articulated particularly by the police for legal guidance by the public prosecutors during the stage of investigation itself to avoid some of the mistakes committed by investigating officers (cited in the 154th Report of the Law Commission).


6

However, expectations from the public prosecutor particularly with respect to what the

public wants may be markedly different and far removed from his role as minister of justice.

This might also considerably influence the personal position of the public prosecutor to the

extent that a senior public prosecutor in the United States once famously offered the

following advice to his colleague: “Your true purpose is to convict the guilty man who sits at

the defence table, and to go for the jugular as viciously and rapidly as possible…You must

never forget that your goal is total annihilation…” (cited in Smith, 2011). In the Indian

context, Atreya (2018) writes that “in the Indian public perception, the concept of

prosecution…refers to the securing of a conviction and ensuring that the accused gets the

maximum possible sentence. Often, in the strong tide of emotions and feelings that

characterise the aftermath of heinous crimes that gain traction in the media, the prosecutor

is seen as the personification of social vengeance”. Strong public opinion may put pressure

on states and governments to take an aggressive stand on crime and ultimately coerce

public prosecutors to cater to public demand and secure maximum convictions and if

possible, death sentences. While being rooted in the pressure to ensure rule of law and

secure ‘justice’, the exercise of such pressure on public prosecutors is at odds with the ends

of justice and legally untenable as an interpretation of the above cited judgments would

help one to conclude.

2.2. Legal Provisions Governing Public Prosecution in India

Section 225 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) provides that in every trial

before a Court of Session, the prosecution shall be conducted by a Public Prosecutor with

section 226 providing that a trial shall commence with the Prosecutor describing the

charge/s against the accused.

The law governing the functioning of the public prosecutor and the method of appointment

as observed by the Law Commission (2006) must result in the creation of “an independent

body of prosecuting officers, free from the executive and all external influences, free from

police and must be able to enforce the rule of law without fear or favour, advance public

interest in punishing the guilty and protecting the innocent”. It is to this end that the legal

provisions pertaining to public prosecution have been subject to many amendments and

continues to be deliberated upon. At the same time, the fact remains that with criminal law

and criminal procedure (including all matters included in the Code of Criminal Procedure)

being subjects on the Concurrent list, states have also legislated on the area (bringing about

their own amendments to the CR.P.C. and enacting Rules to give effect to the provisions of

the Code) leading to the adoption of different prosecution models across the country.

The Cr.P.C. provides the basic principles governing public prosecution across the country

with section 2(u) defining a public prosecutor as “any person appointed under section 24

and includes any person acting under the direction of a Public Prosecutor”.


7

2.2.1. Appointment of Public Prosecutors

Sections 24 and 25 of the Cr.P.C. deals with the appointment of Public Prosecutors,

including Additional Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors, both at the High

Courts and at the subordinate courts. Section 24(1) deals with the appointment of Public

Prosecutors to the High Court stating that “For every High Court, the Central Government or

the State Government shall, after consultation with the High Court, appoint a Public

Prosecutor and may also appoint one or more Additional Public Prosecutor for conducting in

such court, any prosecution, appeal or other proceeding on behalf of the Central

Government or State Government, as the case may be”.

With respect to the district/ session courts, section 24(3) empowers the state government

to appoint Public Prosecutors for each district as well as Additional Public Prosecutors. Two

methods of appointment of Public Prosecutors to the same are provided in the Cr.P.C. with

the option open to the state government to adopt any method. Section 24 (4) provides for

one method of appointment to the effect that the District Magistrate shall, in consultation

with the Sessions Judge, prepare, a panel of names of persons, who are, in his opinion fit to

be appointed as Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutors for the district. Section

24(5) further provides that no person shall be appointed by the State Government as the

Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for the district unless his name appears in

the panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate under sub-section (4).

Section 24 (6) provides for an alternative mode of appointment which is through the

creation of a regular cadre of prosecuting officers expressly stating that “notwithstanding

anything contained in sub-section (5), where in a State there exists a regular Cadre of

Prosecuting Officers, the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor or an

Additional Public Prosecutor only from among the persons constituting such Cadre” with a

proviso to the effect that “…where, in the opinion of the State Government, no suitable

person is available in such Cadre for such appointment that Government may appoint a

person as Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, from the

panel of names prepared by, the District Magistrate under sub-section (4)”. Explanation (a)

to sub-section 6 of section 24 defines “regular cadre of prosecuting officers” as “a Cadre of

Prosecuting Officers which includes therein the post of a Public Prosecutor, by whatever

name called, and which provides for promotion of Assistant Public Prosecutors, by whatever

name called, to that post”. Explanation (b) to sub-section 6 defines “Prosecuting Officer” as

“a person, by whatever name called, appointed to perform the functions of a Public

Prosecutor, an Additional Public Prosecutor or an Assistant Public Prosecutor under this

Code”.

Section 24 (7) lays down the minimum eligibility requirements for a person to be appointed

as a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor under the relevant sub-sections of

section 24 which is seven years spent as a practicing advocate. Section 24(8) provides that

the Central or State Government could also appoint a Special Public Prosecutor for the


8

purposes of any case or class of cases with the eligibility requirement being not less than ten

years as a practicing advocate.

Section 25 deals with the appointment of Assistant Public Prosecutors to the effect that as

per sub-section (1), the State Government shall appoint in every district one or more

Assistant Public Prosecutors for conducting prosecutions in the courts of Magistrates. Sub-

section 1A also empowers the Central Government to appoint one or more Assistant Public

Prosecutors for the purpose of conducting any case or class of cases in the courts of

Magistrates. As per sub-sections (2) and (3), no police officer shall be eligible to be

appointed as an Assistant Public Prosecutor except in a case where no Assistant Public

Prosecutor is available for the purposes of any particular case. In such circumstances, the

District Magistrate may appoint any other person to be the Assistant Public Prosecutor in

charge of that case with the proviso that a police officer shall not be so appointed if he has

taken any part in the investigation into the offence with respect to which the accused is

being prosecuted or is below the rank of Inspector.

Section 25A of the Cr.P.C. provides the legal basis for the establishment of a Directorate of

Prosecution by the state government consisting of a Director of Prosecution and as many

Deputy Directors of Prosecution as it thinks fit. It was introduced by Act 25 of 2005 with

effect from 23.6.2006.2 This amendment came about as a result of the Supreme Court

directive in S.B. Shahane v. State of Maharshtra AIR 1995 SC 1628 to the Government of

Maharashtra (applicable to other states as well) to constitute a separate Prosecution

Department having a cadre of Assistant Public Prosecutors and making the Head of this

department directly responsible to the State Government for administrative and functional

purposes. This was also part of the recommendations of the Law Commission (14th, 154th

Reports), and the National Police Commission in its 4th Report. The Malimath Committee

while stressing on the need for every state to create the post of a Director of Prosecution,

however, recommended that the Director should be a police officer of the rank of Director

General of Police and that Assistant Public Prosecutors and Prosecutors other than State

Public Prosecutors in the High Court should be under his administrative and disciplinary

control.

2 Prior to the insertion of Section 25A in the Cr.P.C in 2005, states adopted different models and structures with the result that certain states adopted the system of Directorate of Prosecution while others did not do so (Aman Trust, 2005). As of 2003, as observed by the Malimath Committee, most of the States had a separate Directorate of Prosecution. The Committee noted that some States like Bihar, Maharashtra, Kerala, MP, Tamil Nadu, AP, Orissa, Rajasthan and NCT of Delhi had placed this Directorate under the Home Department. In some other States like Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka and Goa, the Directorate was under the administrative control of the Law Department. The Commiittee further found that in some of the States, the Director of Prosecution was an officer belonging to the higher judicial service in the State. In Tamil Nadu and UP, the post of Director of Prosecution was held by IPS officers of the rank of DGP/IG. In Gujarat, the Committee found that there was no separate Directorate of Prosecutions. The Aman Trust Report of 2005 also noted the absence of a separate Directorate of Prosecution in Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram besides Gujarat.


9

As per section 25A (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 (sub-section 2). As per section 25A(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. Sub-section (4)

makes the Deputy Director of Prosecution while sub-section (5) makes the Public

Prosecutors, Additional Public Prosecutors 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 subordinate to the Director of Prosecution. As per

section 25A(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. As per sub-section (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. Sub-section (8) expressly provides that the

provisions of section 25A does not apply to the Advocate General for the State while

performing the functions of a Public Prosecutor.

The above provisions of the Code (as well as the Rules framed by the state government)

with regard to eligibility and mode of appointment of Public Prosecutors are to be strictly

complied with; as held by the Supreme Court in a number of landmark decisions. For

instance, in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Prafulla

Majhi 1977 CrLJ 853, the High Court of Calcutta quashed the ex-officio appointment of the

Public Prosecutor by the state on the grounds of non-compliance of the provisions of the

Code which renders it invalid. The Supreme Court in Harpal Singh Chauhan and ors vs. State

of UP AIR 1993 SC 2436 further held that consultation (if it is mandated by the legal

provisions governing appointment of public prosecutors) between the District Magistrate

and the District and Sessions Judge in this particular case had to be ‘effective or real’ and

the general comments made by the District Magistrate did not amount to compliance with

the legal requirement.

2.2.2. Withdrawal from Prosecution

An important provision with respect to public prosecution in India which has also generated

much controversy in recent times is the provision for withdrawal from prosecution provided

for in section 321 of the Cr.P.C. which reads as under:


10

“The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may, with the

consent of the Court, at any time before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the

prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences

for which he is tried; and, upon such withdrawal,-

(a) if it is made before a charge has been framed, the accused shall be discharged in respect

of such offence or offences;

(b) if it is made after a charge has been framed, or when under this Code no charge is

required, he shall be acquitted in respect of such offence or offences: Provided that where

such offence-

(i) was against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union

extends, or

(ii) was investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment under the Delhi Special Police

Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946 ), or

(iii) involved the misappropriation or destruction of, or damage to, any property belonging

to the Central Government, or

(iv) was committed by a person in the service of the Central Government while acting or

purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, and the Prosecutor in charge of the

case has not been appointed by the Central Government, he shall not, unless he has been

permitted by the Central Government to do so, move the Court for its consent to withdraw

from the prosecution and the Court shall, before according consent, direct the Prosecutor to

produce before it the permission granted by the Central Government to withdraw from the

prosecution”.

Section 321, thus, confers authority on the public prosecutor to withdraw from the

prosecution of a person accused of any crime with the permission of the Court; the

conditions under which this right is to be exercised has been the subject matter of many

Supreme Court and High Court judgements. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in

Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar AIR 1987 SC 877 held that “…the law is very clear that

the withdrawal of prosecution can be allowed only in the interest of justice. Even if the

Government directs the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution and an application is

filed to that effect, the court must consider all relevant circumstances and find out whether

the withdrawal of prosecution would advance the cause of justice…” This judgement has

been upheld in a number of subsequent judgements. In another judgement in V.L.S. Finance

v. S.P. Gupta and Another 2016(3) SCC 736, the Apex Court clearly “… enumerated the

principles pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Court while dealing with an application

preferred under Section 321 CrPC and also highlighted the role of the Public Prosecutor who

is required to act in good faith, peruse the materials on record and form an independent

opinion that the withdrawal from the prosecution would really subserve the public interest


11

at large. …the Public Prosecutor is not supposed to act as a post office and he is expected to

remember his duty to the Court as well as his duty to the collective.” A similar view has been

espoused in many other judgements to the effect that public interest and justice should be

the only considerations under which section 321 is to be exercised.

Chapter III: Public Prosecution in Madhya Pradesh: Legal Provisions

and the Current Institutional Structure

3.1. State Level Legal Provisions

3.1.1. Amendments to the Relevant Provisions of the Cr.P.C.

The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure discussed in the previous chapter

along with the amendments (if any) brought about by state governments to these provisions

as well as the Rules enacted by the state government to give effect to these provisions

govern the public prosecution system and the procedure of appointment at the state level.

In this section, we will be discussing in detail the laws enacted by Madhya Pradesh, including

amendments to the Cr.P.C. which govern the public prosecution system in Madhya Pradesh.

Through the M.P. Act 21 of 1995, an amendment was made to the CR.P.C. to the effect that

a sub-section (6-A) was added to sub-section 6 of section 24 (ii) with the latter dealing with

the creation of a regular cadre of prosecuting officers (the eligibility requirement of a

prosecuting officer being not less than seven years of experience as a practicing advocate).

Sub-section (6-A) deemed to have been inserted with retrospective effect from 18th

December 1978 reads as under:

“(6-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6), the State Government may

appoint a person who has been in practice as an advocate for not less than seven years as

the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for the district and it shall not be

necessary to appoint the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for the district

from among the person constituting the Cadre of Prosecution Officers in the State of

Madhya Pradesh and the provisions of sub-section (4) and (5) shall apply to the

appointment of a Public Prosecutor Additional Public Prosecutor under this sub-section”.

The effect of this amendment is that in Madhya Pradesh, both the two methods of

appointment of public prosecutors at the district level- through a regular cadre as well as

through a panel proposed by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions Judge

are legally valid while adhering to the eligibility requirement of not less than seven years as

an advocate in practice.

Another major amendment to the CR.P.C. applicable to Madhya Pradesh was effected

through the Code of Criminal Procedure (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2013 which

sought to substitute section 25A of the principal Act dealing with the establishment of a

state level Directorate of Prosecution. The salient features of the state level amendment vis-

à-vis the principal Act are described below:


13

Sub-section (1) of amended Section 25A provides that the State Government may establish

a Directorate of Prosecution consisting of a Director of Prosecution and as many Additional

Directors of Prosecution, Joint Directors of Prosecution, Deputy Directors of Prosecution and

Assistant Director of Prosecution and such other posts as it thinks fit. On the other hand, the

same sub-section of the principal Cr.P.C. merely provides that 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. Thus, the state level amendment seeks to

provide for an expanded Directorate with functionaries at different levels.

Sub-section (2) of the state level amendment provides that the posts of Director of

Prosecution, Additional Directors of Prosecution, Joint Directors of Prosecution, Deputy

Directors of Prosecution and Assistant Directors of Prosecution and other posts shall be

filled in accordance with the Madhya Pradesh Public Prosecution (Gazetted) Service

Recruitment Rules, 1991 (which will be dealt with later). This is in variance to sub-section (2)

of the Cr.P.C. which specifies that the eligibility requirement of Director of Prosecution or a

Deputy Director of Prosecution, should be practice as an advocate for not less than ten

years with such appointment having being made with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of

the High Court.

Sub-section (3) of both the state amendment and the main Cr.P.C. is same to the effect that

the Directorate is to be headed by the Director of Prosecution, functioning under the

administrative control of the head of the Home Department of the state.

While sub-section (4) of the principal Code makes every Deputy Director sub-ordinate to the

Director, in a similar fashion, sub-section (4) of the state amendment makes all the

functionaries (expressly provided in amended sub-section (2)) in the Directorate sub-

ordinate to the Director of Prosecution. Sub-section (5) of the state amendment makes

every Public Prosecutor and Additional Public Prosecutor appointed under the Madhya

Pradesh Public Prosecution (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1991 sub-ordinate to the

Director of Prosecution. At the same time, it makes Public Prosecutors appointed under

relevant sub-sections of section 24 to conduct cases in the High Court subordinate to the

Advocate General. This is in variance to sub-section (5) of the Cr.P.C. which makes them

subordinate to the Directorate of Prosecution.

Sub-section (6) of the amended section 25A as applicable to Madhya Pradesh makes every

Public Prosecutor and Additional Public Prosecutor appointed under section 24(3) and every

Special Public Prosecutor appointed under section 24 (8) to conduct cases in District Courts

subordinate to the District Magistrate. This is in contrast to the same sub-section in the

principal legislation- the Cr.P.C. which makes these functionaries subordinate to the Deputy

Director of Prosecution.


14

3.1.2. The Madhya Pradesh Public Prosecution (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules,

1991

These Rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the

Constitution of India3 provide the legal basis for creation of a separate cadre/ service of

prosecuting officers in Madhya Pradesh. As per Rule 4 dealing with the constitution of the

service, the service shall consist of:

(i) Persons who at the commencement of these Rules are holding subsequently the

posts specified in Schedule-I4;

(ii) Persons recruited to the service before the commencement of these Rules; and

(iii) Persons recruited to the service in accordance with the provisions of these Rules.

Rule 6 dealing with the method of recruitment provides for three types of recruitment:

direct recruitment by selection; by promotion of the members of the service; by transfer of

persons who hold in a substantive capacity such posts in such service as may be specified in

Schedule-II. As per Schedule III of the Rules, the eligibility requirement for appointment to

the post of Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer (through direct recruitment) is a

degree in law from any recognized university or equivalent and persons possessing First

Division or 2 years practice at Bar with a preference for higher qualification (minimum and

maximum age limit being 24 years and 30 years respectively).

Rules 13 and 14 deal with appointment by promotion and conditions of eligibility for

promotion respectively. Apart from the post of Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer

which is through direct appointment, all the other posts are 100% through promotion of the

members of the service. However, in case of the post of Director and Joint Director, in

addition to promotion of the members of the service, there is also the option available that

if there is no suitable officer in the cadre, then the post could be filled through deputation

from IAS/IPS/Higher Judicial Service (Schedule II of the Rules). This is in sharp variance and

in potential conflict with the provisions of the central enactment which expressly lays down

the eligibility requirement for the post of Director/ Deputy Director as not less than ten

3 Article 309 of the Constitution reads as under: Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State: Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Acts of the appropriate Legislature may regulate the recruitment, and conditions of service of persons appointed, to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State: Provided that it shall be competent for the President or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and for the Governor of a State or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, to make rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to such services and posts until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate Legislature under this article, and any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such Act. 4 Schedule I includes the posts of Director of Prosecution, Joint Director of Prosecution, Deputy Director/ Deputy Director (H.Q.)/ Additional Public Prosecutors, District Public Prosecution Officer/ Additional District Public Prosecution Officer/ Assistant Director (H.Q.), Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer.


15

years practice as an advocate. Further, such appointment is to be made with the

concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court which is not provided for in the Rules.

Figure 2: Schedule II of the Madhya Pradesh Public Prosecution (Gazetted) Services

Recruitment Rules, 1991

Schedule IV, on the other hand, details out the requirements of minimum experience for

qualifying for promotion to various posts and the members of the Departmental Promotion

Committee which will consider the cases of promotion of eligible candidates to these posts

as under Rules 13 and 14.


16

Figure 3: Schedule IV of the Madhya Pradesh Public Prosecution (Gazetted) Services

Recruitment Rules, 1991

3.2. Current Institutional Framework in Madhya Pradesh

In Madhya Pradesh, the Prosecution wing was separated from the Police Department in

1987 and a separate Directorate of Prosecution was set up under the Department of Home


17

through Memorandum No. 2 (e) 168/87 / B (4) 2, dated 8th June 1987 with its headquarters

in Bhopal and offices in every district of the state as well as presence at the tehsil level. The

mandate entrusted by the government to the Directorate include the following:

(i) Control and superintendence over all prosecution work in the state;

(ii) Following the insertion of section 25A (5) to the Cr.P.C. and subsequent state

level amendment to it, the Directorate has supervisory powers over the

functioning of all Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors appointed

through the Service Rules in the state;

(iii) At the same time, the Directorate is also to provide necessary instructions to the

Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors appointed by the

Department of Law and Legislative Affairs and regularly review their work.

(Annual Administrative Report 2017-18 of the Directorate of Prosecution,

Government of Madhya Pradesh).

At present, the total strength of the Directorate of Prosecution, Government of Madhya

Pradesh is as follows:

Name of Post Number of Sanctioned Posts

Presently Filled

Vacant

Director 1 1 -

Joint Director 2 1 1

Deputy Director 80 29 51

Assistant Director/ District Public Prosecution Officer/ Additional District Public Prosecution Officer

156 125 31

Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer 910 753 157

Superintendent 1 1 -

Assistant Superintendent 1 1 -

Personal Assistant 2 - 2

Junior Accounts Officer 1 1 -

Stenographer 4 3 1

Accountant 1 - 1

Assistant Grade I 28 6 22

Assistant Grade II 87 28 59

Assistant Grade III 586 258 328

PCD (Pre-Conviction Detective) 51 3 48

APCD (Assistant Pre Conviction Detective) 51 14 37

Steno-Typist 2 1 -

Driver 1 1 -

Daftari 1 1 -

Peon 89 4 -

Chowkidar 1 - 1

Sweeper 1 - 1

Total 2057 1231 826

Table 1: Staff Strength of the Directorate of Prosecution, Government of Madhya Pradesh

Source: Directorate of Prosecution (Government of Madhya Pradesh), 2018, Annual

Administrative Report 2017-18, Bhopal: Directorate of Prosecution.


18

Thus, the above table on staff strength of the Directorate indicates that overall, there is a

vacancy of about 40%. Here, it may be mentioned that taking cognizance of the need for

strengthening public prosecution, the state government has from time to time increased the

number of sanctioned posts from State to tehsil level with 605 additional posts sanctioned

in 2015-16 (Annual Administrative Report 2016-17 of the Directorate of Prosecution,

Government of Madhya Pradesh).5

Figure 4: Staff Strength in Select Eight District Prosecution Offices

Source: Information Collected from Respective District Prosecution Offices by

CMYPDP Research Associates

At the district level, as the above table shows, an analysis of the staff strength in the select

eight districts (complete details in Annexure I) indicates that Gwalior District Prosecution

Office is working with a staff strength of about 98% followed by Vidisha operating on 74% of

its total strength and Bhopal at 70%. Rajgarh is operating at about 67% of its total strength

followed by Panna District Prosecution Office at 65% of its total strength, Shajapur at 64%,

Balaghat at 60% and Umaria at 59%.

The approved budget of the Directorate (Annual Administrative Report 2017-18 of the

Directorate of Prosecution, Government of Madhya Pradesh) is Rs 71,46,01,200/-. Of this

amount, only Rs 36,93,81,623/- has been spent for the reporting period thus leaving a

whopping Rs 34,52,19,577/- unspent (about 48% of the total budget).

5 Recruitment against these new posts has been conducted through Vyapam with 200 new appointees having joined service in 2017-18 (Annual Administrative Report 2017-18 of the Directorate of Prosecution, Government of Madhya Pradesh).

30

86

73

2027

33

22

31

18

60

45

1318 21

13

23

12

26 28

7 9 12

98

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total Number ofSanctioned Posts

Presently Filled

Vacant

Chapter IV: An Overview of the Performance of the Directorate of

Public Prosecution in Madhya Pradesh

4.1. Parameters for Assessing Performance

As already discussed earlier, it is widely accepted (further reinforced through Supreme

Court judgements) that securing convictions alone cannot be the sole yardstick of assessing

the performance of public prosecution as a single-minded pursuit of this goal to the neglect

of legal principles and requirements of justice could lead to miscarriage of justice. At the

same time, a free and fair public prosecution which diligently prosecutes crimes against the

state is central to ensuring the rule of law. This is not easy; it has been acknowledged by the

Auditor General’s (New South Wales) Report on Efficiency of the Office of the Director of

Public Prosecutions (2000) that developing relevant and appropriate indicators or

parameters for prosecution is complex and, therefore, it is necessary to look at different

jurisdictions and learning from others’ experience. As the Report states, such parameters or

service indicators should broadly be based on (i) quantity –what did we do?; (ii) quality- how

well did we do it?; (iii) timeliness; and (iv) cost. However, the parameters vary considerably

in different jurisdictions across the world. For instance, in the United States, it is based on

parameters such as case load, conviction rate in felonies and misdemeanor while in

Germany, efficiency is measured internally according to the duration of cases; that is, by

recording how many proceedings take three, six or nine months (Open Society Institute,

Sofia, 2008). In France, efficiency of the prosecution is more holistically evaluated both by

the number of cases dealt with by the prosecution offices as well as the ways in which those

cases are handled (ibid.). Ultimately, the goal of any such framework for enhancing the

performance of public prosecution should be, according to the United Nations Office on

Drugs and Crime and International Association of Prosecutors (2006) targeted at the

following objectives:

(i) “Legislative reforms to enable/enhance prosecutorial independence and

discretion;

(ii) Develop capacity of the prosecution service to plan, implement and manage

change;

(iii) Support processes that ensure the responsive operation of running of the

prosecution service through the effective and efficient management of human

and physical resources;

(iv) Improve allocation of resources through sound budgeting processes

and financial management;

(v) Provide operational support to prosecution personnel;

(vi) Improve operational capacity via improved case screening and case load

management;


20

(vii) Develop the professional and administrative skills necessary to meet the

demands of increasingly complex criminal case loads, especially in countries

that are signatories to international conventions that require a sophisticated

response to certain types of crimes as well as the capacity to provide cooperative

legal assistance;

(viii) Enhance the capacity to develop and manage strategic planning, including the

development of meaningful case load and workload indicators.

(ix) Enhance both human and technical resource capacity for the use of information

technology with regard to case and case load management. ..”

It is also widely accepted that enhancing the performance of prosecutors need considerable

investment towards building capacity and providing them the requisite support. The United

Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors (1990) in its Preamble stresses on the need to

build capacities and ensure that prosecutors possess the professional qualifications required

for the accomplishment of their functions through improved methods of recruitment and

legal and professional training and also providing all the necessary means for the proper

performance of their role in combating criminality, particularly in its new forms and

dimensions. Countries like England, for instance, devote a lot of attention and resources to

building capacity. As documented by the Open Society Institute, Sofia (2008), the Crown

Prosecution Service has “a comprehensive training program to equip its prosecutors,

administrative staff, and managers to undertake their duties. New lawyers are given an

induction program tailored to their previous experience, conducted by experienced CPS

lawyers known as lawyer tutors. Once on the job, lawyers have a range of courses available

to help them specialize or start taking cases in the higher courts. Training is also available to

cover changes in the law, usually as a result of new legislation. In such instances, the

training may be mandatory for all prosecutors. Individual training needs are identified

through the appraisal process”.

In this chapter, an attempt will be made to arrive at a tentative assessment (considering the

acknowledged difficulties) of the performance of public prosecution in Madhya Pradesh.

This would be attempted adopting a holistic approach- taking into consideration the

parameters which the Directorate itself employs to review its performance in its annual

Administrative Reports (these being largely standard parameters of case load, pendency,

disposal and conviction).

4.2. State Level Performance in 2015-17

4.1.1. ‘Heinous and Sensational’ Crimes

As there is no stated legal provision defining what constitutes of ‘heinous’ or ‘heinous and

sensational’ crimes, it is largely judicial interpretation which has determined which crimes

are to be regarded as such. It has roughly been interpreted to denote a crime which is of an

‘exceptionally depraved’ character and which constitutes, ‘on account of its design and the

manner of its execution, a source of grave danger to the society at large’ (in which case life


21

imprisonment and capital punishment may be imposed by the court, as held in Bachan Singh

v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898). In a recent Full Bench judgement of the Apex Court in

Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. V. State of Gujarat & Another. (Criminal Appeal No. 1723 of 2017)],

it was further held that “heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or

offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed (even) though

the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly

speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to

continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest

in punishing persons for serious offences”.

In Madhya Pradesh, special attention is being paid in recent times in dealing with and

disposing cases speedily and ensuring that the guilty are being punished particularly in the

context of identified 'Heinous and Sensational’ crimes such as murder, rape (particularly

rape of children). The Government, for instance, has passed a bill providing for death

sentences to persons who are convicted for raping a female child less than 12 years of age.

In line with this tough stand on crime, the Public Prosecution is under pressure and has been

given target oriented goals towards ensuring that the guilty in such crimes are speedily

convicted and ensuring the maximum punishment. A performance appraisal and reward

system on this line has been implemented, which will be dealt with later on in this report.

Figure 5 provides an analysis of the disposed cases with respect to ‘Heinous and Sensational’

crimes for 2015-17. It is seen that disposed cases have steadily risen from 203 in 2015 to

303 in 2016 (an almost 50% increase in a single year) which further increased upto 459 in

2017 (another 51% increase from 2016 to 17), thereby showing an overall increase by 126%

during this time period. This is reflective of increased pressure to prosecute and dispose off

such cases. Figure 5 and 6 show the convictions6 and acquittals during this time period with

convictions secured being fairly high-72% in 2015 which fell to 66% in 2016 which again rose

to 71% in 2017.

6 The outcome of a disposed off case could be many- conviction, acquittal, discharge, compromise or rajinama, withdrawal from prosecution, accused absconding and others. For the purpose of this study, the focus is largely on conviction, acquittal and to a limited extent on withdrawal from prosecution.


22

Figure 5: Cases on ‘Heinous and Sensational’ Crimes Disposed Off by the Directorate of

Prosecution in 2015-17 Source: Annual Administrative Reports 2015-16, 16-17, 17-18 of the Directorate of Prosecution,

Government of Madhya Pradesh

Figure 6: Conviction and Acquittal Rate in Cases on ‘Heinous and Sensational’ Crimes

Disposed Off by the Directorate of Prosecution in 2015-17

For year 2017, we have further detailed information on cases pertaining to ‘Heinous and

Sensational’ crimes as presented in Table 2. Thus, at the beginning of the year, there are

1272 cases pending; with 755 new cases taken up for prosecution, the total number of cases

comes up to 2027. With 459 cases disposed out of a total 2027, the disposal rate for 2017 is

23% and the pendency rate is 77% indicating a sizeable backlog carried forward to the next

year.

203

303

459

147

201

326

56102

132

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2015 2016 2017

Total Disposed

Conviction

Acquitted

7266

71

2834

29

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2015 2016 2017

Conviction Rate (InPercentage)

Acquittal Rate (inPercentage)


23

Cases pending at beginning of year 1272

New cases taken up for prosecution 755

Total cases 2027

Cases disposed 459

Conviction 326

Acquittal 132

Withdrawal

Cases pending at year end 1568

Table 2: Cases Pertaining to ‘Heinous and Sensational’ Crimes for year 2017

Source: Annual Administrative Report 17-18 of the Directorate of Prosecution, Government

of Madhya Pradesh

4.1.2. Cases under the Indian Penal Code

2015 (In Sessions

Court)

2016 (for both Sessions and Magistrate Court)

2017 (In Sessions Court)

Cases pending at beginning of year

436038 605141 44513

New cases taken up for prosecution

22704 101952 19392

Total cases 458742 707093 63905

Cases disposed 23008 141535 13610

Conviction 5580 32701 3434

Acquittal 3498 26089 8219

Withdrawal

1011 709

Cases pending at year end

435734 565558 50295

Table 3: Cases under the Indian Penal Code for 2015-17

Source: Annual Administrative Reports 2015-16, 16-17, 17-18 of the Directorate of

Prosecution, Government of Madhya Pradesh

Table 3 above provides a detailed overview of cases under the Indian Penal code taken up

for prosecution in three years-2015-17 for the state as a whole. This table has been

compiled using the data provided in the Annual Administrative Reports for three years; for

2015 and 2017, we have data available specifically on IPC cases in the Sessions/ District

Courts while for 2017, the data is available for IPC cases prosecuted in Sessions and

Magistrate’ Court as a whole. This admittedly creates difficulties in comparison; however, it

provides a fair idea about different aspects such as disposal rate, pendency, convictions etc.


24

Thus, in 2015, there were 436038 IPC cases pending in Sessions Courts across the state to

which another 22704 cases were added bringing the total number of cases being prosecuted

to a whopping 458742. 23008 cases were disposed off out of 458742 cases leading to a

disposal rate of a mere 5% and a pendency of 95%. For 2016, there were 605141 IPC cases

pending (in Sessions and Magistrate’ Court) to which 101952 new cases were taken up,

leading to a huge 707093 cases for the year. Out of the total, 141535 cases were disposed

off leading to a disposal rate of 20%. In 2017, the volume of pendency at the beginning of

the year was comparatively less at 44513 to which a total of 19392 cases were taken up

bringing up the total to 63905. Out of 63905 cases, 13610 cases were disposed off leading to

a disposal rate of 21%. Thus, if one compares the pendency at year end for 2015 and 17, we

seen a sharp reduction in volume of cases (one might tentatively surmise that of the 141535

cases disposed off in 2016, a major chunk constituted of cases disposed off in Sessions

Court). Figure 7 below shows the disposal rate of IPC cases for 2015-17.

Figure 7: Disposal Rate of IPC Cases for 2015-17

Figure 8 provides an idea about the conviction and acquittal rate for IPC cases disposed off

in 2015-16. Thus, it can be seen that the conviction rate has been more or less consistent at

23% in 2015 for IPC cases in Sessions Court, 23% for IPC cases in Sessions and Magistrate’

Court in 2016 and 25% for IPC cases in Sessions Court. However, this rate has to be viewed

in the light of the fact that the volume of cases has been substantially higher in 2015, 16

than in 2017. The acquittal rate, on the other hand, shows that from 15% in 2015 and 18%

in 2016, there has been a sharp rise to 60% (indicative of weakness of the prosecution case

which could be due to various reasons).

5

2021

0

5

10

15

20

25

2015 2016 2017

Disposal Rate (InPercentage)


25

Figure 8: Conviction and Acquittal Rate for IPC Cases Disposed Off in 2015-17

4.1.3. Cases under Other Legislation7

2015 (in Sessions Court)

2016 (in both Sessions Court and Magistrate Court)

2017 (in Sessions Court)


82257 172781 22825


10515 94621 13056

Total cases 92772 267402 35881

Cases disposed 18689 92143 8682

Conviction 13695 7772 1918

Acquittal 2014 8300 5020

Withdrawal 212 195 831


74083 175259 27199

Table 4: Cases under Other Legislation for 2015-17

Source: Annual Administrative Reports 2015-16, 16-17, 17-18 of the Directorate of

Prosecution, Government of Madhya Pradesh

From Table 4, it can be seen that at the beginning of 2015, 82257 cases under other

legislation (other than IPC) were pending in the Sessions Courts across the state; 10515 new

7 Cases under other legislation include those under the Arms Act, Dowry Prohibition Act, Essential Commodities Act, Excise Act, Explosive Act, Food Adulteration Act, Forest Act, PC and PNDT Act, POSCO Act, Special (SC/ST) Act and others.

24 23 25

1518

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2015 2016 2017


Acquittal Rate (InPercentage)


26

cases were taken up leading to a total case load of 92772 cases in this category. A total of

18689 cases were disposed leading to a disposal rate of 20% and a pendency of 80%. In

2016, the total number of cases pending for both Sessions and Magistrate’s Courts

(separate figures for the two kinds of courts not available for this year) was 172781 to which

94621 new cases were taken up for prosecution leading to a total case load of 267402. A

total of 92143 cases were disposed off leading to a disposal rate of 34%. In 2017, 22825

cases under other legislation in Sessions Courts were pending and 13056 fresh cases were

taken up leading to case load of 35881. 8682 out of 35881 cases were disposed off during

the year. Thus, the disposal rate is 24%. Figure 9 shows the disposal rate of cases under

other legislation for 2015-17.

Figure 9: Disposal Rate of Cases under Other Legislation for 2015-17

Figure 10 shows the conviction and acquittal rate for cases under other legislation disposed

off in 2015-17. In 2015, the conviction rate was a very high 73% with 13695 convictions out

of a total 18689 disposed off cases (see Table 4) for cases under other legislation in Sessions

Courts across the state. In 2016, the conviction rate is a mere 8% for cases under other

legislation both in the Sessions and Magistrate’s Courts. The conviction rate came up to 58%

in 2017 for cases under other legislation in the Sessions Courts. The acquittal rate, on the

other hand, was 11% in 2015 (Sessions Court), 9% for both Sessions and Magistrate’s Courts

and rose significantly to 58% in 2017.

20

34

24

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2015 2016 2017

Disposal Rate (InPercentage)


27

Figure 10: Conviction and Acquittal Rate for Cases under Other Legislation Disposed Off in

2015-17

4.1.1.4 Cases in Subordinate/ Tehsil Level Courts

Cases under IPC Cases

under all other legislation instituted by the Police

Cases instituted by Departments other than the Police


448691 73281 14203


172953 87901 33559

Total cases 621914 161162 47762

Cases disposed 144309 84688 42369

Conviction 29019 65887 37287

Acquittal 21317 9278 2311

Withdrawal 10926 3543 2449


477605 76494 5393

Table 5: Cases in Subordinate/ Tehsil Level Courts in 2017


of Madhya Pradesh

Data on cases in subordinate/tehsil level courts is only available from 2017 onwards as

documented in the Annual Administrative Report 2017-18 and not recorded in the previous

reports. Thus, from table 5, it can be seen that for year 2017, the Directorate had a total

73

8

22

119

58

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2015 2016 2017


Acquittal Rate (InPercentage)


28

case load of 621914 under IPC (total case load being equal to cases pending at the beginning

of the year plus new cases taken up for prosecution), 161162 cases under all legislation

instituted by the police and 47762 cases instituted by departments other than the Police. In

2017, cases disposed off are as follows: 144309 IPC cases (disposal rate of 23%), 84688 cases

under all other legislation instituted by the Police (disposal rate of 53%) and 42369 cases

instituted by Departments under than the Police (89% disposal rate).

In IPC cases, conviction could be secured in 29019 cases (20% conviction rate) and acquittal

in 21317 cases or 15% (out of total disposed 144309 cases). Out of total 84688 cases

disposed off under all other legislation instituted by the Police, conviction was secured in

65887 cases (78%) and acquittal in 9278 cases (11%). With respect to cases instituted by

departments other than the Police, out of total 42369 disposed off, conviction was secured

in 37287 cases (88%) and acquittal in 2311 cases (5%).

Chapter V: An Assessment of the Performance of District Prosecution

Offices in Select Eight Districts of Madhya Pradesh

In this chapter, an attempt will be made to assess the performance of District Prosecution

Offices (in both the district/ sessions and tehsil courts) in select eight districts- these districts

being Balaghat, Bhopal, Gwalior, Panna, Rajgarh, Shajapur, Umaria and Vidisha.

Performance is being assessed on the basis of standard parameters such as case load,

disposal rate, pendency, convictions etc. for different categories of cases. This analysis is,

however, limited by the fact that uniform, comparable data for the three years in question-

2015, 16 and 17 are not available in all districts. For Instance, in districts like Panna and

Rajgarh, we have data only for 2017-18, while in Balaghat, we have similar data for 2016, 17

and 18 leading to difficulties in comparison.

5.1. Cases Pertaining to ‘Heinous and Sensational’ Crimes in Select Districts

5.1.1. Case Load, Disposal Rate and Pendency

Figure 11: Total Case Load for ‘Heinous and Sensational’ Crimes for Five Districts in 3 Years

Source: Information Collected from Respective District Prosecution Offices by


While the exhaustive data on cases relating to ‘Heinous and Sensational’ Crimes in the select

eight districts is provided in Annexure-II, Figure 11 above indicates that the total case load

(case load for each year= cases pending at the beginning of the year+ new cases taken up

for prosecution during the year) for ‘heinous and sensational crimes’ for the years 2015-17

has been the heaviest in Bhopal at 202 cases followed by Gwalior at 162 cases and Vidisha

at 110 cases. In all the five districts, as seen in Figure 11, the case load has grown steadily

46

35

159

23

68

56

20

11

41

88

71

30

18

46

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Bhopal Gwalior Shajapur Umaria Vidisha

2015

2016

2017


30

over the years which is both due to pendency from before and substantial number of cases

being taken up each year.

Panna for 2016-17 has a case load of 72 while Rajgarh has a total case load on sensational

and heinous crimes amounting to 60 cases from 2016-18.

A look at Figure 12 below indicates that the highest number of cases pertaining to ‘heinous

and sensational’ crimes were taken up for prosecution in Bhopal (89 for the period 2015-17)

followed by Gwalior with 75, Vidisha at 40, Shahajpur at 35 and Umaria with the lowest at

20. In Panna, for 2017-18, a total of 30 new such cases were taken up for prosecution while

in Rajgarh, a total of 42 new cases were taken up in 2016-18.

Figure 12: Total Volume of New Cases Taken Up on ‘Heinous and Sensational’ Crimes in

Select Five Districts Source: Information Collected from Respective District Prosecution Offices by


Figure 13 shows the disposal rate in percentage of cases related to ‘Heinous and

Sensational’ crimes for the five districts of Bhopal, Gwalior, Shajapur, Umaria and Vidisha for

three years-2015, 16 and 17. In addition, Figure 14 shows the disposal rate for such cases in

Panna (2016-17) and Rajgarh (2016-18). Figure 13 indicates that in 2015, Umaria had the

highest disposal rate at 44% which came down to 18% in the next year which further fell to

6% in 2017. Shajapur has more or less maintained a fair disposal rate over the three years

with 33% in 2015 which, however, has shown a decline to 25% in 2016 and further down to

23% in 2017. Gwalior has shown a sharp downward trend (from 26% in 2015 to 18% in 2016

and a very sharp fall to just 1% in 2017). Bhopal had a disposal rate of 17% in 2015 which

dropped to 15% in 2016 and which shows improvement in 2017 to 25%. Further, as Figure

14 indicates, in Panna, the disposal rate has gone up from 23% in 2016 to 42% in 2017. In

Rajgarh, from a disposal rate of 60% in 2016, there has been a decline to 26% in 2017 which

has, however, gone up considerably to 48% in 2018.

89

75

35

20

40

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


New cases (2015-17)


31

Figure 13: Disposal Rate (In Percentage) of Cases Related to ‘Heinous and

Sensational’ Crimes in Select Five Districts

Figure 14: Disposal Rate (In Percentage) of Cases Related to ‘Heinous and

Sensational’ Crimes in Panna and Rajgarh

Thus, at the end of each year, there is considerable pendency in the districts studied. Figure

15 indicates the pendency at the end of each year for cases on ‘heinous and sensational’

crimes which have been steadily on the rise in all the five districts with the highest pendency

recorded in Gwalior at 70 in 2017 followed by Bhopal with 66 cases in the same year where

too, the pending cases have risen from year to year. The next highest number of pending

cases is in Vidisha followed by Shajapur and Umaria. In Rajgarh, the number of pending

cases has increased from 4 in 2016 to 14 in 2017 and 27 in 2018. In Panna, the number of

pending cases at year end has been consistent at 23 for 2017 and 2018 respectively.

17

15

2526

18

1

33

2523

44

18

6

1317

40

10

20

30

40

50

2015 2016 2017

Bhopal

Gwalior

Shajapur

Umaria

Vidisha

23

42

2016 2017

Disposal Rate in Panna

60

26

48

2016 2017 2018

Disposal Rate in Rajgarh


32

Figure 15: Cases on ‘Heinous and Sensational’ Crimes Pending at Year End in Select Five

Districts Source: Information Collected from Respective District Prosecution Offices by


Figure 16: Cases on ‘Heinous and Sensational’ Crimes Pending at Year End in Rajgarh

Source: Information Collected from Respective District Prosecution Office by

CMYPDP Research Associate

5.1.2. Convictions, Acquittals and Withdrawals in Disposed Off Cases on ‘Heinous and

Sensational’ Crimes

Figure 17 deals with the cases disposed off in the select 5 districts for the time period 2015-

17. It indicates that Bhopal had the highest number of such cases disposed off in these three

years at 42 followed by 20 in Gwalior, 17 in Shajapur and 11 in Vidisha. 7 such cases were

disposed off in Umaria. The conviction rate (number of convictions/ total number of

disposed off cases *100) for the three years together is the highest in Shajapur district at

88% followed by Bhopal which is 76% and Vidisha at 64%. In Umaria, it is about 43% while in

Gwalior, it is the lowest at 35%. Acquittals have been the highest in Gwalior district both in

terms of sheer numbers at 13 also constituting 65% of total cases disposed in the district. In

relation to total number of cases disposed off in the district, the acquittal percentage has

also been very high in Umaria at 57% and Vidisha at 45%. In Bhopal, the acquittal

percentage is 16% and in Shajapur, it is 12%. There has not been a single case of withdrawal

in three years in all the five districts.

38

26

105

20

58

46

159

34

6670

2317

44

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


2015

2016

2017

4

14

27

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2015 2016 2017

Rajgarh


33

In Panna, as figure 18 below shows, 26 cases were disposed off in 2017-18, of which

conviction was secured in 77% of the cases while in the rest, the accused were acquitted. In

Rajgarh, a total of 15 cases were disposed off in 2016, 17 and 18 of which conviction was

obtained in 53% of the cases. The acquittal rate is high at 47%.

Figure 17: Cases on ‘Heinous and Sensational’ Crimes Disposed Off in Select Five Districts

in 2015-17 Source: Information Collected from Respective District Prosecution Office by

CMYPDP Research Associate

Figure 18: Cases on ‘Heinous and Sensational’ Crimes Disposed Off in Rajgarh and Panna

Source: Information Collected from Respective District Prosecution Office by CMYPDP Research Associate

4.2. Cases in the District/ Sessions Court in Select Districts

In this section, we will be analyzing the performance of the public prosecution at the district

level dealing with cases taken up in the District/ Sessions Court including cases covered

under the Indian Penal Code and all other cases. The complete data on cases in the district/

sessions courts to the extent available has been enclosed as Annexure III.

42

2017

7

11

32

7

15

3

77

13

24 5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


Total cases Disposed

Conviction

Acquital

Withdrawal

15

87

00

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Total cases Disposed Conviction Acquital Withdrawal

2016-18

Rajgarh (2016-18)

26

20

6

00

5

10

15

20

25

30


Conviction Acquital Withdrawal

Panna (2017-18)


34


Figure 19 below shows the total case load (pending at the beginning of the year+ new cases

taken up for prosecution in the year) of four districts for 2015-17 while Figure 20 shows the

case burden for 2016-18 for Balaghat and for 2017-18 for Panna and Rajgarh. Thus, it

emerges that Bhopal has the highest case load which has steadily grown higher over the

three years under consideration with the second highest case load being in Gwalior which is

also showing an increasing trend. Balaghat, as seen in Figure 20 has over the years 2016-

2018 seen a case load which is next highest after Bhopal and Gwalior. The fourth highest

case load is in Rajgarh. Shajapur, Panna and Umaria have relatively low case loads.

Figure 19: Total Case Load in District/ Sessions Courts in Select Four Districts for

2015-17


Figure 20: Total Case Load in District/ Sessions Courts in Panna, Rajgarh and

Balaghat


40671

25474

591

687

40083

26040

595

563

43462

27840

674

464

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Bhopal

Gwalior

Shajapur

Umaria

2017

2016

2015

551

2178

765

2212

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Panna Rajgarh

2017

2018

5446

8335 8291

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

2016 2017 2018

Balaghat


35

Figure 21 and 22 below indicates that the volume of new cases taken up for prosecution in

the district/ sessions courts every year for 2015-17 has been the highest for Bhopal with a

staggering 47601 cases taken up in total over three years. Gwalior is in the second position

with a total of 24898 cases taken up for prosecution over the same period. Though for a

different time period (2016-18), Balaghat is in the third position in terms of new cases taken

up for prosecution at 18040 cases in total.

Figure 21: Total Volume of New Cases Taken Up in District/ Sessions Court in Select Four

Districts in 2015-17


Figure 22: Total Volume of New Cases Taken Up in District/ Sessions Court in Panna,

Rajgarh and Balaghat


Figure 23 shows the disposal rate in percentage of cases at the district/ sessions court for

the four districts of Bhopal, Gwalior, Shajapur, and Umaria for three years-2015, 16 and 17.

The figure indicates that the highest disposal rate recorded in 2015 was 46% for Shajapur

which, however, came down drastically to 34% and 35 % in 2016 and 2017 respectively.

16400

8106

289

82

14629

7746

273

84

16572

9046

281

92

47601

24898

843

258

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Bhopal

Gwalior

Shajapur

Umaria

Total

2017

2016

2015

181

771

464

626645

1397

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Panna Rajgarh

New Cases

2017

2018

Total 4931

7543

5566

18040

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

2016 2017 2018 Total

New Cases

Balaghat


36

Bhopal, despite its huge case load, has been consistent- 33% in 2015 and 16 respectively

and a slight drop to 31% in 2017. Gwalior with the second highest case load has a disposal

rate of 28% in 2015 and 16 respectively and has increased it upto 31% in 2017. Umaria with

one of the lowest case loads started off with a disposal rate of 30% in 2015 which increased

to 34% in 2016 followed, however, by a sharp dip to 21% in 2017. In addition, Figure 24

shows the disposal rate for such cases in Panna and Rajgarh (2016-17) and Balaghat(2016-

18). In Panna, the disposal rate has fallen from 45% in 2017 to 37% in 2018 while in Rajgarh,

it has increased marginally from 27% to 29%. In Balaghat, from a disposal rate of 85% in

2016, there has been a fall to 67% in 2017 which increased to 73% in 2018.

Figure 23: Disposal Rate of Cases in District/ Sessions Court in Select Four Districts for

2015-17

Figure 24: Disposal Rate of Cases in District/ Sessions Court in Panna, Rajgarh and

Balaghat

Figures 25 and 26 indicate that there is a high level of pendency at year end with respect to

cases in district/ sessions court particularly acute in districts like Bhopal and Gwalior which is

also steadily rising over the time period from 2015-17. Pendency at year end also rose

substantially for a district like Balaghat from 792 in 2016 to 2725 dropping to 2225 in 2018.

3333 31

28 28 31

46

34 35

3034

21

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2015 2016 2017

Disposal Rate (in Percentage)

Bhopal

Gwalior

Shajapur

Umaria

45

37

2729

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2017 2018

Disposal Rate (In Percentage)

Panna

Rajgarh

85

6773

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2016 2017 2018

Disposal Rate (in Percentage)

Balaghat


37

Figure 25: Pending Cases in District/ Sessions Court at Year End in Select Four Districts for

2015-17

Source: Information Collected from Respective District Prosecution Office by CMYPDP

Research Associate

Figure 26: Pending Cases in District/ Sessions Court at Year End in Balaghat, Panna and

Rajgarh

Source: Information Collected from Respective District Prosecution Office by CMYPDP

Research Associate

25454

18294

322 479

26890

18794

393372

30128

19241

441 3680

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Bhopal Gwalior Shajapur Umaria

Pending Cases in District/ Sessions Court at Year End

2015

2016

2017

792

2725

2225

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2016 2017 2018


Balaghat

303

1586

480

1563

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Panna Rajgarh


2017

2018


38

4.2.2. Convictions, Acquittals and Withdrawals in Disposed Off Cases in District/ Sessions

Court

Figure 27: Cases in District/ Sessions Court Disposed Off in Select Four Districts in 2015-17


Figure 28: Cases in District/ Sessions Court Disposed Off in Panna, Rajgarh and Balaghat


As Figure 27 indicates, the highest number of cases disposed off in the district/ sessions

court for 2015-17 in total has been in Bhopal at 40047 of which conviction has been secured

in 16369 cases, thus ensuring a conviction rate of around 41% for the three years together

while the acquittal rate is around 13%. The second highest number of cases disposed off for

the same period has been in Gwalior at 23025 cases- of these, conviction has been secured

in 7300 cases (ensuring around 32% conviction rate for three years overall) and acquittal in

40047

23025

704

495

16369

7300

187

103

5187

4871

516

392

307

97

0

0

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Bhopal

Gwalior

Shajapur

Umaria

Withdrawal

Acquital

Conviction

Total Cases Disposed


39

4871 cases (21%). In Shajapur, 704 cases have been disposed off in total, with conviction in

187 cases (27%) and acquittal in 516 cases (thus, leading to very high acquittal rate of 73%).

In Umaria, out of 495 cases disposed off, conviction was obtained in 103 cases (21%) and

acquittal in 392 cases (80% acquittal rate over three years).

Figure 28 shows that for 2017-18 together, Panna had a total of 533 cases disposed off out

of which conviction was secured in 181 cases (34%) and acquittal in 352 cases (66%). In

Rajgarh, out of total 1242 cases disposed off, conviction was obtained in 315 cases (25%)

and acquittal in 927 (75%).

In Balaghat, for 2016-18, a total of 16330 cases were disposed off out of which there have

been convictions in 5702 cases (35%) and acquittals in 2433 (14%).

Thus, from the above analysis, it is seen that a few districts show a very high acquittal rate

particularly Umaria, Shajapur, Rajgarh and Panna indicating that that these cases could not

be sustained in court which could be owing to legal untenability, insufficiency of evidence,

weak case, ineffective prosecution or other reasons. Withdrawal of prosecution has been

very few in number with most districts reporting zero withdrawals with the exception of

Bhopal at 307 withdrawals and Gwalior at 99 over 2015-17 and Balaghat at 153 withdrawals

from 2016-18. Interestingly, these are also districts with a better conviction rate and lower

acquittal rate despite high volume of cases.

4.3. Performance at Tehsil Level in Select Districts

Annual data on the performance of the Public Prosecution at the tehsil level was not

possible to collect in a few districts for all the years covered in the study (2015, 16 and 17).

As such, the analysis here is limited in scope to the districts for which tehsil level data for

these years are available. The complete tehsil level data for individual districts is included in

Annexure IV. Here, it may be mentioned that the tehsil level data includes all kinds of cases

prosecuted (with cases under the Indian Penal Code constituting the bulk) at the tehsil level

by the Prosecution Officer posted in the different tehsils of each individual district. The

entire tehsil level data for the four districts is presented in Annexure IV.


40


Figure 29: Total Case Load at Tehsil Level for Four districts in 2015-17


Figure 29 above shows that the total case load in the tehsil courts for three years together is

highest in Shajapur with a total of 19006 cases followed by Gwalior with 18530. The next

highest highest case load is in Bhopal with 9228 cases with Umaria having the lowest case

burden at 5371. In all the districts, the case load is increasing every year.

Figure 30: Total Volume of New Cases Added in Three years at the Tehsil Level in Select

Four Districts


Figure 30 indicates that a substantial number of new cases have been taken up for

prosecution in the three years under consideration in districts like Shajapur (3048) followed

2774

6015

6168

1457

2938

6382

6150

1484

3516

6133

6688

2430

9228

18530

19006

5371

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Bhopal

Gwalior

Shajapur

Umaria

Total

2017

2016

2015

1257

2230

3048

895

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Bhopal

Gwalior

Shajapur

Umaria

New cases (2015-17)


41

by Gwalior at 2230 cases and Bhopal at 1257. In Umaria, 895 new cases were taken up

during this period.

Figure 31: Disposal Rate (In Percentage) at Tehsil Level in Select Four Districts for

2015-17

Figure 31 above indicates that the highest disposal rate is in Umaria with 60% in 2015 which

has, however, come down to 48% in 2016 and further down to 40% in 2017 (Umaria,

however, has a relatively low case load). In Shajapur, the disposal rate was 50% in 2015

which has seen a downward trend to 43% in 2016 and 37% in 2017. In Bhopal, the disposal

rate was 40% in 2015 which came down to 27% in 2016 though in 2017, it made an

improvement upto 30%. Gwalior which had low disposal rate at 31% has increased it to 35%

in 2016 and further upto 37% in 2017.

Thus, at the end of each year, there is considerable pendency in the districts studied which

is likely to be compounded with the addition of new cases. Figure 32 indicates the pendency

at the end of each year at the tehsil level in the four districts studied showing that in terms

of volume, Shajapur records the highest number of pending cases followed by Gwalior (with

both districts recording high number of new cases registered). In Bhopal, the volume is

much lesser at 2456 while in Umaria, it is lowest at 1447 at the end of 2017.

40

273031

35 37

50

43

37

60

48

40

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2015 2016 2017

Disposal Rate (In Percentage) at Tehsil Level

Bhopal

Gwalior

Shajapur

Umaria


42

Figure 32: Cases Pending at the End of Each Year at Tehsil Level in Select Four Districts


4.3.2. Convictions, Acquittals and Withdrawals in Disposed Off Cases at Tehsil Level

Figure 33: Cases Disposed Off at the Tehsil Level in Select Four Districts for 2015-17


Figure 33 indicates that Shajapur had the highest number of total disposed off cases (for

2015, 16 and 17 in total) at 6816 cases followed by Bhopal with 2990 cases disposed off at

the tehsil level. In Bhopal and Umaria districts, 2990 cases and 2450 cases were disposed off

respectively at the tehsil level.

The conviction rate (total number of convictions /total disposed off cases* 100) for the

three years under consideration is the highest in Umaria at 89.9% followed by Shajapur at

1645

4152

3102

589

2137

4106

3528

772

2456

3903

4208

1447

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500


2015

2016

2017

2990

6349

6816

2450

1505

1874

4144

2203

246

1130

1067

360

3

41

0

0

0 2000 4000 6000 8000

Bhopal

Gwalior

Shajapur

Umaria

Withdrawal

Acquital

Conviction



43

about 61% (which also has the highest number of disposed off cases). In Bhopal, the

conviction rate for the three years together is about 50%. In Gwalior, it is much low at about

30%. Acquittals at the tehsil level are comparatively higher in Gwalior at about 18% followed

by Shajapur at about 16% and about 15% in Umaria. It is much lower in Bhopal at 8%.

Instances of withdrawal of prosecution at the tehsil level are very few with there being no

withdrawals in the three years considered for the study in Umaria and Shajapur, with a

mere 3 withdrawals over three years for Bhopal. The number is comparatively much higher

in Gwalior at 41.

Chapter VI: Enhancing ‘Performance ‘of the Public Prosecution:

Initiatives and Challenges In this chapter, an attempt is being made to analyze the key initiatives adopted as well as

the challenges which come in the way of ensuring optimal ‘performance’ by public

prosecutors in the state and serve the cause of justice. This is being done on the basis of

information gleaned from the website of the Directorate of Prosecution as well as its annual

administrative reports for the last three years as well as responses of public prosecutors in

the state at different levels and in different courts (sessions and tehsil) obtained through a

series of in-depth interviews conducted in the select eight districts. In all, about 32 public

prosecutors at different levels were interviewed for the purpose. The interview guide

providing broad cues or open-ended questions is being enclosed as Annexure-V.

6.1. Initiatives to Enhance Performance

6.1.1. Prosecutor Performance Evaluation and Monitoring System

The Directorate of Prosecution has in recent years launched and been using a mobile app

and web module based performance evaluation and monitoring system with the goal of

ensuring ‘ transparent, rule-based and scientific calculation of the performance score of the

prosecutor’. Every public prosecutor is required to upload his daily report detailing all his

court related and other administrative activities through a mobile app; this information is

summarized and synchronized with the Prosecutor Performance System of the Web portal

(http://eprosecution.mp.gov.in/).The daily activity and monthly performance information is

then analyzed to calculate/ evaluate prosecutor performance using certain well-defined

formulas.

Linked with this system, a reward scheme was launched subsequently in 2018 with the

avowed goal of ‘motivating’ prosecutors to ensure speedy trial and secure convictions,

whereby prosecutors who could secure a death sentence obtained 1000 points, those who

could ensure life-term imprisonment got 500 points, 100-200 points were obtained for

maximum punishment in lower courts. The system, thus, allows for the identification of

‘Best Prosecutor’ of the month for prosecutors at all levels and ‘Pride of Prosecution’ (for

those who collected over 2,000 points) as well as Best District every month. A strict warning

is being issued to those who get less than 500 points per month (Datta, 2018). This reward

scheme has, however, received a lot of criticism with critics, citing Supreme Court

judgements, opining that such a system would subvert “the sanctity of the criminal justice

delivery system” (Atreya, 2018) and poses “a serious challenge to the autonomy of

prosecutors and will affect how they exercise their discretion” (Datta, 2018). As Atreya

(ibid.) elucidates, such a system creates “a perverse incentive by encouraging prosecutors to

cut corners and undermine the defence’s case”.


45

At the same time, the performance appraisal system also gives weightage to other non-

sentence related achievements to qualify for ‘Pride of Prosecution’ every month; these

include award of Ph.D., commendation by Director/ DG/ADG, qualifying for Direct

Recruitment for the post of Additional District Judge (ADJ), Judge in High Court, Master

Trainer of Department, National/ State Award, and publication of books

(http://www.eprosecution.mp.gov.in/TheProsecutor/Pages/PridofProsecutionLockedDetail.

aspx. , accessed on February 18, 2019).

Figure 34: A Screen Shot of the Mobile App for Evaluating Performance of Public

Prosecutors in Madhya Pradesh

Source:

(https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=in.nic.bhopal.prosecutor&hl=en_IN).

6.1.2. Enhancing Capabilities and Training Needs Addressed

While recruitment through a fairly rigorous competitive examination conducted by the

Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission in recent times is believed to have substantially

ensured recruitment of well qualified public prosecutors at the entry level (Assistant District

Prosecution Officer), their capabilities are further enhanced through a basic foundational

training course (ADPOs recruited fresh in 2018 in interview said that they received about

two months training at the Central Academy for Police Training, Bhopal). Across the eight

districts studied, interviewed public prosecutors at all levels reported that in addition to the

basic foundational training, they have also participated in many in-service training

programmes particularly referring to the training received on dealing with cyber crime,

offences under the I.T. Act, for tacking offences under the POSCO, PCPNDT Act, forensics

etc . In addition, some of the interviewees have reported training on improving mental

ability and relaxation; enhancing productivity; case preparation and presentation in court

etc. On an average, a public prosecutor (as reported by the interviewees) receives about

two trainings in a year. These trainings are being provided by state level institutions such as

the Central Academy for Police Training, RCVP Noronha Academy of Administration, Bhopal,

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=in.nic.bhopal.prosecutor&hl=en_IN


46

Madhya Pradesh State Judicial Academy, Jabalpur government departments; international

agencies such as UNICEF (POSCO Act), as well as national level institutes such as Sardar

Vallabhai Patel National Police Academy, Hyderabad; LNJN National Institute of Criminology

and Forensic Science, New Delhi.

Table 6 below provides an exhaustive list of the training provided for the public prosecutors

in the state in different institutes in 2017-18:

Name of Training Institute Number of Public Prosecutors From Madhya Pradesh Who Received Training

LNJN National Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science, New Delhi

125

Central Academy for Police Training, Bhopal

104

Madhya Pradesh State Judicial Academy, Jabalpur

134

RCVP Noronha Academy of Administration, Bhopal

9

Sardar Vallabhai Patel National Police Academy, Hyderabad

2

Other Misc. Trainings in Bhopal/ Indore/ Jaipur and others

227

Total 601

Table 6: Training Provided for Public Prosecutors in Madhya Pradesh in 2016-17


of Madhya Pradesh

Overall, the interviewed public prosecutors reported their satisfaction with the training

received which they believe is essential for them to continuously hone their skills and keep

abreast with the latest developments (particularly I.T.) while also enabling them to enhance

their productivity and manage stress levels well. However, to be more effective, some

interviewees felt that the training programmes should be of longer duration; others said

that the training should be provided in both English and Hindi for better understanding and

assimilation. A District Prosecution Officer (D.P.O.) interviewed opined that more benefits

could be derived from the trainings if there is provision for need based trainings and self

nomination. At the moment, as told by him, the type of training to be provided and the list

of participants is being decided upon by the Directorate at the state level (which may end

up missing the particular training needs in a particular District Prosecution Office).

6.1.3. Launch of E-Journal The Prosecutor

The Directorate of Prosecution, Government of Madhya Pradesh has launched an e-journal

The Prosecutor with the objective of “promoting research and development in legal

practices followed by the prosecutors and innovations in the field of law and justice”

http://www.eprosecution.mp.gov.in/TheProsecutor/Pages/Default.aspx. The journal seeks


47

to “addresses the problems of criminology, jurisprudence etc. dealt by the prosecutors in

the court of law” and provides a forum for the prosecutors, legal practitioners, law students

and personals working and involved in courts to publish their articles in this field.

6.1.4. Using IT for Better Management

In the past years, efforts have been on to ensure broadband, net connectivity/wi-fi, VPN

(Virtual Private Network) facility, SWAN connectivity in all the District Prosecution Offices

and the Directorate (Annual Administrative Report 2016-17). For the purpose of letter/

application tracking, UTTAR-A (Universal Transparent Tracking of Applications and

Responses (to Applications)) file tracking racking system has been functional in all

prosecution offices of the state with effect from January 1, 2018 (Annual Administrative

Report 2017-18). The objective of putting this system in place is to promote ‘paperless work’

and ensure efficient and transparent functioning.

6.2. Challenges in the Way of Optimal ‘Performance’

6.2.1. Remuneration and Scope for Career Advancement

Interviewed public prosecutors at all levels expressed some dissatisfaction with the

remuneration received. Public prosecutors at the level of District Prosecution Officer felt

that while they are Class-I officers of the state government, they do not receive the same

remuneration and facilities made available to other Class-I officers of the state. As opined by

the interviewees, at the entry level of Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer (ADPO),

the grade pay is quite low at Rs 4200 (this grade pay has been effective from May 1, 2018;

before that, it was Rs 3600). ADPOs feel that as legal professionals with a very important

role, they should atleast get a grade pay of Rs 5400 (similar to other professionals such as

engineers and doctors at the entry level).

Public prosecutors at all levels said that they were not happy with the scope of career

advancement citing that promotions come very late (from the time they are due). It was

reported by almost all the interviewees that most public prosecutors receive just one

promotion during their service career and there are instances when they are denied even

this. As a result, many public prosecutors (even fresh joinees) try their best to become

Additional District Judges (by appearing for a competitive exam) and leaving their jobs as

public prosecutors.

6.2.2. Work Load and Other Work Related Challenges

Most interviewed public prosecutors felt themselves competent enough to handle their

workload though most felt that they could perform better if certain issues were addressed.

For instance, prosecutors in most cases do not get access to the case diaries (or a copy of

the same) from the police early on in the case as a result of which they do not get enough

time to prepare for each individual case. Considering the fact that they have numerous such

cases in multiple courts going on at the same time, it is difficult for them to do adequate

justice to each individual case. Many prosecutors also feel that sometimes a weakly framed


48

chargesheet submitted by the police to the court results in failure of the government case.

As such, they feel that there should be a mechanism whereby the police should consult the

public prosecutor prior to filing the charge-sheet in court. Overall, it emerges from the

interview that for public prosecution to function more effectively, better coordination with

the Police is required and there is a need to put in place institutional mechanisms to ensure

this. A few prosecutors also admitted that there is considerable pressure to ensure ‘heavy’

convictions in ‘heinous and sensational’ crimes but felt that conviction cannot be the sole

yardstick of assessing performance as their primary duty is to ensure that justice is served.

In their opinion, the appraisal system should also take into account the manner a case was

presented, the revision and appeals filed etc.

In addition, prosecutors also felt that they would be able to perform their duties much

better if they had adequate office infrastructure and support staff etc. Moreover, many

prosecutors also felt that rather than assigning them duties in multiple courts, they would

be able to function more effectively if they were each assigned all cases in a single court.

6.2.3. Office Infrastructure and Facilities

It has emerged from the interviews with public prosecutors as well as from personal visits to

the District and Tehsil level Prosecution Offices by the CMYPDP Research Associates that

office infrastructure is not upto the mark and in tune with the requirements of public

prosecutors.

In almost all the districts, it was found that the Prosecution Office at both the district and

tehsil level is being housed in the Court premises (with the exception of one District

Prosecution Office at the Office of the Superintendent of Police and another tehsil office

operating from a rented space). The office of the Prosecution in all instances has been found

to be very small with bare minimum facilities and all the staff are expected to operate from

this crowded, cramped space. For instance, in one district, it was reported that 7 ADPOs had

to make do with three cubicles among them. In one office, it was reported that there are

not enough chairs and tables for all the prosecutors. Many tehsil level offices operate from

just one single room. District Prosecution Officers interviewed say that while they are Class-I

officers, the facilities provided to them are not commensurate with their position, with both

DPO and additional DPOs not having separate offices but made to sit with their subordinates

in a ‘hall-like’ room in the court. Also, public prosecutors complained that they did not have

storage space for case diaries and other materials (which is substantial owing to the multiple

cases that they are handling at a time). There is also limited washroom and drinking water

facilities (a problem which is aggravated in the case of lady prosecutors).

Further, public prosecutors in all districts said that their work was being hampered owing to

lack of adequate support staff in their respective offices owing to which, apart from

preparing their cases, they have to do all other jobs on their own like tying letters and

applications, photocopying, entry and filing etc.


49

No single prosecution office has an official vehicle at their disposal; the lack of an office

vehicle is particularly problematic owing to the fact that prosecutors are assigned multiple

courts; shuttling between district and tehsil courts and Gram Nyayalsayas is difficult

(compounded particularly for lady prosecutors).

6.2.4. Security Concerns

In almost all districts, it was felt that the prosecution office should be provided some

minimum security particularly considering that they deal with ‘heinous and sensational’

crimes and prosecutors admit to receiving threats from the accused at times. However, only

one office said that there was a security guard while in another District Prosecution Office, a

security guard was posted in 2017 whose services, however, had to be withdrawn soon

owing to lack of funds for his salary. Prosecutors and their families also felt vulnerable to

such threats considering that official quarters are not available and they usually stay in

rented premises in the places where they are posted.

6.2.5. Access to Computer, Internet, Updated Case Materials

With respect to computer, internet facilities and access to updated case material, mixed

responses have been obtained. For instance, in Bhopal, as reported, public prosecutors have

been provided laptops, CuG sim, internet connection (through mobile) as well as access to

legal software like Legal Eagle to facilitate case preparation, e-journals etc. all of which help

them to prepare for their cases in an efficient manner. However, in some other districts, it

was reported that a laptop has been allocated only to the DPO and others have to make do

with one or two computers in the office (which are primarily being used by the clerical

staff). One interviewee opined that while laptops have been provided to senior public

prosecutors (many of whom are not well versed in computers and hence, not being able to

use the same well), most of the ADPOs especially the new recruits are proficient in

computers and would greatly benefit if laptops were provided to them (while ensuring that

the senior prosecutors get an opportunity get basic training on computers). However, public

prosecutors stay abreast of new developments in their field through information shared on

Prosecutor Whatsapp groups. They also follow the latest Supreme Court and High Court

judgements on their mobile phones or personal laptops. Case material in soft form is made

available to them though many feel that it should also be made available in hard copy. A law

library with the latest case materials is essential in every District Prosecution Office, as some

public prosecutors strongly felt.

Chapter VII: Conclusion and the Way Ahead

In this concluding chapter, it would be apt to now discuss the key findings of the study vis-à-

vis the three stated objectives- reviewing the public prosecution system of Madhya Pradesh

through the lens of effectiveness or performance; intuitional capabilities; and

independence/ autonomy of the public prosecutors.

Dealing with the third objective first, independence/ autonomy of the prosecutor’s function

has been recognized in Supreme Court judgements to be the most crucial to ensuring the

rule of law and as observed by the Law Commission (2006), the legislation governing the

functioning of the public prosecutor and the method of appointment must result in the

creation of “an independent body of prosecuting officers, free from the executive and all

external influences, free from police..”. Madhya Pradesh was one of the first states to

constitute an independent Directorate of Prosecution (much before the Cr.P.C.

amendments to that effect) separate from the police. Also, through the state level

amendments, the state has ensured a regular cadre of prosecuting officials (appointed at

entry level through direct recruitment on the basis of a competitive exam and higher levels

filled through promotion) which is believed to be central to ensuring ‘independence’ as well

as quality. Further, in interview with prosecutors at different levels, it could be understood

that prosecutors in the state have a reasonable measure of autonomy/ independence and

lack of interference in taking up the cases in the way in which justice demands though

almost all feel that better coordination with the police is required to ensure that

prosecutors can build up a strong case and pursue it effectively (for instance, access to the

case diaries from the police early on in a case could lead to a better prepared prosecution).

As far as performance/ effectiveness is concerned, it is seen from the study that at all levels

and for all kinds of cases, the public prosecutors have a very heavy case load owing to

pendencies from before as well as a large number of cases taken up for prosecution every

year. Some District Prosecution Offices have a much higher case load than others such as

Bhopal, Gwalior, Vidisha. Despite the heavy burden, there is a constant focus to have as

many cases disposed off in a particular year. It is indeed commendable that districts like

Bhopal and Gwalior despite having a much higher case load have also been the best

performers in terms of cases disposed off. Coming to conviction, a strong focus on securing

convictions including the death penalty in ‘heinous and sensational’ crimes is reflected in

the performance appraisal and reward scheme and also reflected in the fact that for the

state as a whole, conviction rate in such crimes has been above 60% for the years under

consideration.

Apart from the standard parameters based on ‘quantity’, there is some recognition that

ensuring ‘quality’ of prosecution is also pertinent with the United Nations Guidelines on the


51

Role of Prosecutors stressing on the need to build capacities and ensuring that prosecutors

possess the professional qualifications required for the accomplishment of their functions

through improved methods of recruitment and legal and professional training and also

providing all the necessary means for the proper performance of their role in combating

criminality, particularly in its new forms and dimensions. In this regard, the Directorate of

Prosecution, Government of Madhya Pradesh is at par with the international guidelines

ensuring direct recruitment of well qualified professionals at entry level and filling up the

posts at the higher level through promotion; also equipping the public prosecutors through

basic foundational course and training throughout their careers particularly focused on

equipping them to handle technology related and other crimes better in tune with the latest

developments. Further, it is indeed commendable that as part of the performance appraisal

scheme, non-sentence related achievements are also duly recognized.

Thus, as discussed above and also in the preceding chapters, the Directorate and the District

Prosecution Offices are well equipped in terms of competent and trained prosecutors at all

levels thus reflecting institutional capability of a very high order. However, with the

Directorate as a whole and District Prosecution Offices not working at full sanctioned

strength further compounded by an increasing case load particularly in some districts, the

existing staff find themselves stretched way beyond. Also, discharging duties in multiple

courts, infrastructure and other challenges as discussed in the preceding chapter pose

challenges. It is also laudable that the Directorate of Prosecution has endeavoured to use IT

to the maximum for better management including at district and tehsil level though much

more needs to be done.

Thus, in conclusion, it may be surmised that public prosecution in Madhya Pradesh fulfills

many of the internationally and nationally accepted benchmarks/ yardsticks and as laid

down by the Courts. A few recommendations may be made to further ensure that public

prosecution is truly able to serve the cause of justice and uphold the rule of law in the state

which are as below:

(i) While performance appraisal systems could be geared to speed up disposal and

increase convictions, at the same time, a point system for rewarding death sentences

could be at odds with the ends of justice and incongruent with accepted legal principles.

Such a scheme as introduced a few years ago may need careful reconsideration in the

light of Supreme Court judgements and the recommendations of the Law Commission in

this regard.

(ii) A case may be made for increasing sanctioned strength in the Directorate in general

and certain District Prosecution Offices in particular which are saddled with a heavy case

burden. At the minimum, existing vacancies at all levels need to be addressed on priority

basis. Across all District Prosecution Offices, prosecutors felt constrained by lack of

support staff which needs to be addressed.


52

(iii) While the prevailing legal framework in the state ensures independence of the

prosecution from the police, a coordination mechanism needs to be worked out at the

Departmental level (Home being the parent department for both) to ensure that a

legally full-proof case could be presented in court by the prosecutor and successfully

defended.

(iv) As opined by many prosecutors, a heavy case burden in multiple courts along with

lack of official conveyance facilities come in the way of optimum performance and poor

preparation of cases. Many prosecutors felt that rather than assigning them duties in

multiple courts, they would be able to function more effectively if they were each

assigned all cases in a single court; an idea which may be worth considering.

(v) With most public prosecutors expressing dissatisfaction with the remuneration and

scope for career advancement, the government needs to carefully look into the HR

needs to ensure optimum performance.

(vi) Enhancing the infrastructure of the district and tehsil level prosecution offices need

to be taken up in a phased manner to ensure that public prosecutors across the state are

provided a certain modicum of facilities to be able to better address the demands of

their profession.

(vii) Last but not the least, it is the duty of the state government to ensure the safety

and security of public prosecutors and their families and adequate resources would

need to be deployed to ensure the same particularly when prosecutors are handling

sensitive and controversial cases and where a threat is perceived.


53

References Aman Trust, 2005, Public Prosecution in India, http://amanpanchayat.org/wp-

content/uploads/2018/01/public-prosecution.pdf, accessed on January 15, 2019.

Auditor General (Australia), 2000, Efficiency of the Office of the Director of Public

Prosecutions, Sydney: The Audit Office of New South Wales.

Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, 2003, Committee on Reforms of Criminal

Justice System-Report, Volume I, New Delhi: Ministry of Home Affairs: Government of India.

Directorate of Prosecution (Government of Madhya Pradesh), 2018, Annual Administrative

Report 2017-18, Bhopal: Directorate of Prosecution.

Humphreys, C., 1955, “The Roles and Responsibilities of Prosecuting Counsel”, Criminal Law

Review 739.

Law Commission of India, 1996, 154th Report on the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Act

No. 2 of 1974), Volume-I, New Delhi: Law Commission of India.

Law Commission of India, 2006, 197th Report on Public Prosecutor’s Appointments, New

Delhi: Law Commission of India.

Open Society Institute, Sofia, 2008, Promoting Prosecutorial Accountability, Independence

and Effectiveness: Comparative Research,

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/promoting_20090217.pdf

(accessed on January 30, 2018).

Smith, A., 2011, “Can You be a Good Person and a Good Prosecutor?”, 14 Geo. J. Legal

Ethics, pp. 355-400.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, International Association of Prosecutors, 2006,

Access to Justice: The Prosecution Service, Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and

Crime.

http://amanpanchayat.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/public-prosecution.pdf

http://amanpanchayat.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/public-prosecution.pdf

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/promoting_20090217.pdf


54

Annexure 1: Staff Strength in Select Eight District Prosecution Offices

at the Time of Study (Data as made available by the Respective District Prosecution Offices to the CMYPDP

Research Associates)

Balaghat

Name of Post Total Number of Sanctioned Posts

Presently Filled Vacant


District Prosecution Officer (D.P.O.)

1 1 0

Additional D.P.O. 1 0 1

Assistant D.P.O. 14 14 0

Pre-Conviction Detective (P.C.D.)

1 0 1

Additional P.C.D. 1 0 1



Peon 2 0 2

Total 30 18 12

Bhopal





1 1 0




2 1 1


Assistant Grade I 2 0 2



Total 86 60 26


55

Gwalior





2 1 1



P.C.D. 1 0 1

A.P.C.D. 1 0 1




Peon 4 0 4

Total 73 45 28

Panna





1 0 1




1 0 1




Peon 1 0 1

Total 20 13 7

Rajgarh





1 1 0



P.C.D. 1 0 1


56

A.P.C.D. 1 0 1


Total 27 18 9

Shajapur





1 1 0




1 1 0




Total 33 21 12

Umaria





1 1 0



Assistant Grade-II 1 1 0


1 0 1


Clerks/ CRPC 8 3 5

Peon 1 0 1

Total 22 13 9

Vidisha





1 1 0


57




1 0 1




Total 31 23 8


58

Annexure II: Cases Pertaining to Identified Heinous and Sensational

Crimes in Districts

2015 Bhopal Gwalior Shajapur Umaria Vidisha

Pending from before 17 15 5 4 16

Cases presented this year 29 20 10 5 7

Total cases 46 35 15 9 23

Total disposed this year 8 9 5 4 3

Conviction 7 4 5 2 2

Acquittal 1 5 0 2 1

Withdrawal 0 0 0 0 0

Pending at year end 38 26 10 5 20

2016 Bhopal Gwalior Rajgarh Shajapur Umaria Vidisha

Pending from before 38 26 0 10 5 20

Cases presented this year

30 30 10 10 6 21

Total cases 68 56 10 20 11 41

Total disposed this year

10 10 6 5 2 7

Conviction 8 3 5 4 0 4

Acquittal 1 7 1 1 2 3

Withdrawal 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pending at year end 58 46 4 15 9 34

2017 Bhopal Gwalior Panna Rajgarh Shajapur Umaria Vidisha

Pending from before

58 46 19 4 15 9 34


30 25 11 15 15 9 12

Total cases 88 71 30 19 30 18 46


22 1 7 5 7 1 2

Conviction 17 0 5 2 6 1 1

Acquittal 5 1 2 3 1 0 1

Withdrawal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pending at year end

66 70 23 14 23 17 44


59

2018 Panna Rajgarh

Pending from before 23 14

Cases presented this year 19 17

Total cases 42 31

Total disposed this year 19 15

Conviction 15 1

Acquittal 4 3

Withdrawal 0 0

Pending at year end 23 27


60

Annexure III: Cases (IPC and others) presented in District/ Sessions

Court 2015


Pending from before 24271 17368 302 605

Cases presented this year 16400 8106 289 82

Total cases 40671 25474 591 687

Total disposed this year 13520 7180 269 208

Conviction 3178 2027 63 46

Acquittal 1595 1636 206 162

Withdrawal 287 67 0 0

Pending at year end 25454 18294 322 479

2016 Balaghat Bhopal Gwalior Shajapur Umaria

Pending from before 515 25454 18294 322 479


4931 14629 7746 273 84

Total cases 5446 40083 26040 595 563

Total disposed this year 4654 13193 7246 202 191

Conviction 1813 6362 2274 60 40

Acquittal 670 1858 1471 142 151

Withdrawal 17 20 12 0 0

Pending at year end 792 26890 18794 393 372

2017

Balaghat Bhopal Gwalior Panna Rajgarh Shajapur Umaria

Pending from before

792 26890 18794 370 1407 393 372


7543 16572 9046 181 771 281 92

Total cases 8335 43462 27840 551 2178 674 464


5610 13334 8599 248 592 233 96

Conviction 1885 6829 2999 78 154 64 17

Acquittal 798 1734 1764 170 438 168 79

Withdrawal 97 0 18 0 0 0 0

Pending at year end

2725 30128 19241 303 1586 441 368


61

2018

Balaghat Panna Rajgarh

Pending from before 2725 301 1586

Cases presented this year 5566 464 626

Total cases 8291 765 2212

Total disposed this year 6066 285 650

Conviction 2004 103 161

Acquittal 965 182 489

Withdrawal 39 0 0

Pending at year end 2225 480 1563


62

Annexure-IV: Tehsil Level Cases of Districts 2015


Pending from before 1539 4176 3036 451


1235 1839 3132 1006

Total cases 2774 6015 6168 1457


1129 1866 3066 868

Conviction 628 527 1433 813

Acquittal 81 380 504 55

Withdrawal 3 32 0 0

Pending at year end 1645 4152 3102 589

2016

Bhopal Gwalior Rajgarh Shajapur Umaria

Pending from before 1681 4152

3102 589


1257 2230

3048 895

Total cases 2938 6382

6150 1484


801 2215

2622 712

Conviction 449 682

1270 599

Acquittal 63 358

355 113

Withdrawal 0 2

0 0

Pending at year end 2137 4106

3528 772

2017

Bhopal Gwalior Panna Rajgarh Shajapur Umaria

Pending from before

2137 4106 295 12928 3528 1188


1379 2027 1560 6736 3160 1242

Total cases 3516 6133 1855 19664 6688 2430


1060 2268 1340 4566 2480 983

Conviction 428 665 1036 3620 1441 791

Acquittal 102 392 304 991 208 192

Withdrawal 0 7 0 11 0 0

Pending at year end 2456 3903 515 15098 4208 1447


63

Annexure-V: Interview Guide/ Broad Cues for In-depth Interviews

Instructions for interviewers: Total confidentially to be maintained and the same to be

explicitly conveyed to interviewees.

• What do you think constitutes the main duties of a public prosecutor? What in your

opinion is 'effective' performance for the position?

• What are the conditions which you feel are required for a public prosecutor to effectively

discharge her/ his duty?

• Do you think that your present work conditions are conducive for effectively discharging

your duties? If not, what are the main impediments faced by you and your colleagues?

• Have you undergone any training in the last 3 years/ If yes, do you feel that the training

has been adequate and commensurate with your needs? If not, when was the last time you

had gone for training?

• Do you have access to a computer, internet, latest case materials etc. required to prepare

for a case properly?

• Are you comfortable with your existing workload and able to do justice to the cases at

hand?

• Do you get adequate time to prepare your cases?

• Do you get office support (in terms of research assistance, secretarial support etc.) to help

you prepare for your cases?

• Are you happy with your remuneration and scope for career advancement? If not,

elaborate.

• Do you feel empowered enough to take forward a case in accordance with what justice

demands?

• Has there been any occasion in the past when you have faced any sort of pressure in

taking a case in a particular direction?

• Do you feel pressurised by the need to secure maximum convictions particularly in high

profile and sensational crimes irrespective of the evidence?

• Is there any formal mechanism for Investigating Officers’ to interact with the

Prosecutors during the course of the investigation, in bail related matters and overall


64

trial management? Would you say that there is effective coordination? Is there any

interference/ pressure exerted on you by the police?

• How is the relation of the Public Prosecution with the Police Department? Elaborate.

a review of the public prosecution system in madhya...

Documents