Analysis of Investigation and Trial of Criminal Cases Involving

Influential Public Personalities

ABSTRACT

The fair and quick resolution of criminal cases involving influential public figures is really
important for maintaining people's trust and following the law. This paper takes a close look at the
big challenges and solutions within the Indian legal system to speed up the investigation and trial
processes in these cases. It talks about why it's often hard to prosecute these high-profile
individuals, like when powerful people try to block justice, or when there are delays in following
procedures, or when it's tough to gather evidence against well-connected people. The paper also
talks about how important it is to have good investigations and documents during trials, which isn't
always given enough attention.

The paper looks at some important changes and reforms suggested by the Supreme Court and
important court cases, like the 2G Spectrum case. It talks about different ways to deal with the
problems causing delays and how to make trials faster, like changing laws to make procedures
simpler, making sure witnesses are safe, creating special courts that work faster, and sticking to
strict timelines for legal processes.

It also talks about what special courts should do and what steps should be taken after a criminal case
is filed and during the trial itself, giving detailed insights into how these legal changes can work in
practice. The paper also suggests some extra important changes needed to make trials fair and
transparent when influential people are involved.

By pointing out where the current legal system falls short and suggesting specific changes, this
paper stresses the need for ongoing improvements in the law and the courts. It's all about making
sure that justice isn't just talked about but is actually happening, which is crucial for everyone to be
treated equally under the law and for our democracy to work well. In the end, the paper offers a
detailed plan for dealing with the challenges in cases involving influential public figures, giving
practical ideas for making the legal system better in India.
INTRODUCTION
A stain on the judicial system is excessive delays in the investigation, prosecution, and courtroom
trial of criminal cases involving serious acts. This frustrates both the goal of penal law and the
desire of society to apply the criminal law on criminals with reasonable promptness.

In order to punish those found guilty, the public interest requires that criminal trials, particularly
those involving serious crimes, be resolved in a fair amount of time. People get dissatisfied with the
system if there are delays at every turn and the legal system is prevented from proceeding as it
normally should. This is especially true if there are intentional attempts to obstruct and prolong the
process. Furthermore, all evidence will eventually fade or disappear due to time's passage.
Oral evidence, which is typically crucial to the prosecution, will sometimes take a shady or twisted
path. Given the length of time, hostile witnesses and witnesses with fading recollections will be
heavily weighted inside the system. Significantly relying on oral testimony has obvious
disadvantages. Low conviction rates and even the incrimination of innocent people are being caused
by a lack of experience, persistent effort, and the application of scientific investigative techniques.

The question whether the term ‘influential person in public life’ needs to be defined has engaged the
attention of the Law Makers. The influential persons are not merely those who are holding or who
have held public offices; even their henchmen and close relations, the rich and powerful and men
with muscle power having links with one or the other political party are quite influential in their
own way and they have the potential to create stumbling blocks for smooth investigation and
effective trial.1

Prior to delving into the problem's details, it would be beneficial to review some statistics that touch
on the general state of criminal justice in the nation.

Pending cases across various courts in the country are moving towards the five crore-mark with an
over 4.32 crore backlog in subordinate courts, according to data shared by the government in Rajya
Sabha. Law Minister Kiren Rijiju said as on December 31, 2022, the total pending cases in district
and subordinate courts was pegged at over 4.32 crore. He also said over 69,000 cases are pending in
the Supreme Court, while there is a backlog of more than 59 lakh cases in the country's 25 high
courts.2

Out of these pending cases, most of the cases are of such nature because of either lack of evidence
or non-admissibility of the already available pieces of evidence. The second most prominent reason
was the involvement for certain influential people, who, with their power and influence are able to
bend the procedural framework and use the acquired time to amend certain facets of the case in
their favour.

1 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39463074/
2 https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/nearly-5-crore-pending-cases-in-courts-over-69-000-in-supreme-court-3768720
CAUSES FOR DELAY BEFORE THE CASE REACHES THE COURT FOR TRIAL

1. Police apathy and inaction in filing formal complaints and initiating a thorough investigation
for a variety of reasons. (This is the case despite police manuals stressing the importance of
swift and efficient investigation.)

2. Crime investigation is not given enough priority. Employees being diverted from police
stations to perform a variety of relatively trivial tasks, like "Bandobust," is a frequent
occurrence. The current police force stationed in the majority of States is woefully
inadequate, and even the authorised strength is never fully staffed.

3. The prompt and high-quality investigation is being hampered by corruption at the police
station level. In addition, there are not enough officers in the police stations, and they are not
motivated to act impartially or fearfully.

CAUSES FOR DELAY IN THE PROGRESS OF CRIMINAL CASES IN TRIAL COURT

1. The non-production of undertrial prisoners or the absence of some or all of the accused
during the charging and trial phases. The police are not making a sincere attempt to locate
and bring back the fugitive accused. For both legitimate and manufactured reasons, the
police now place the least importance on enforcing warrants.

2. Police frequently fail to make sure prosecution witnesses show up on time, and even I.O.s
frequently default. Trials are frequently postponed because official witnesses fail to show
up.

3. Lack of proper witness protection measures and the Court failing to act promptly in cases of
complaints of harassment/inducement of witnesses.

SPECIAL COURTS

In India, Special Courts are being arranged for different preliminaries for offences relating to
transactions in securities, atrocities against Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, expending
narcotic drugs, infringement of the National Investigation Agency Act, corruption, etc. The apex
court of India has additionally arranged 12 quick-track uncommon courts to solely manage cases
including with MLA/MPs.3

Special Courts are set up relatively frequently in cases involving large-scale fiscal swindles and
diversion of public finances by those in public services or commercial operation. Crimes having
inter-state felonious collaborative ramifications venturing the security of society or terrorist crimes
are also tried by Special Courts set up on ad hoc base by the Governments. Creation of special
courts to deal with corruption cases is an area which is engaging the attention of Central
Government and High Courts. Crimes allegedly committed by influential persons holding high

3 https://www.latestlaws.com/latest-news/supreme-court-decides-to-monitor-functioning-of-special-courts-that-fast-
track-criminal-cases-against-legislators/
services in extraordinary situations similar as exigency was held to be a maintainable ground to set
up Special Courts. But, any mask direction to set up Special Courts wherever influential public
personalities are involved ought to be avoided, especially viewed from Composition 14 angle.
Special and extra-ordinary situations should be present, piecemeal from the indicted being in an
influential position in public life.4

2G SPECTRUM CASE5

This was an Indian case of abuse of power and even featured second in Time Magazine’s “Top Ten
Abuses of Power”. This case involved allegations of bribery against former telecom minister of
India, A. Raja of the UPA government. It was alleged that Raja had allotted airwaves and licences
for telephone networks in exchange for bribes, causing financial losses up to Rs 1.76 lakh crore to
the Indian national exchequer. Further, a proper auction was not conducted as was the norm in these
situations. The Supreme Court cancelled 122 2G licences but the Special CBI Court acquitted the
accused in 2017. The Court stated that the prosecution had “miserably failed” to establish evidence
against the accused. The arguments in the case of an appeal against the CBI Court decision
are ongoing in the Delhi High Court.

MEASURES TO BE TAKEN DURING CRIMINAL PROCEDURE6

FIR Copy to be Sent to SP/SSP for Prompt Action: Cases in which public figures are influential it
should become a priority to send a copy of FIR to the Superintendent of Police (SP)/Senior
Superintendent of Police (SSP) for prompt action.

Time-Bound Investigation: There should be an ideal finish to the investigations within three
months, and thereafter, charge sheets are to be filed within one month.

Use of Technology: FIRs, the statements of the accused, and witnesses, and processing of
digitization of investigation records are necessary.

Prompt Court Proceedings: The District Judge shall bring out a report on what delays in the conduct
of the accused, police, or prosecution require prompt resolution through liaising with police. Special
Focus on Old Cases: Priority would be given to Sessions Cases, more particularly those of
influential public persons who are more than 5 years old.

Modernising Police Stations: This entails connecting every station to the courts, requiring digital
video recording for FIRs and crime scene examinations, and making sure that secure interrogation

4 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/supreme-court-to-monitor-work-of-special-courts-
which-will-try-lawmakers/articleshow/65791206.cms

5 AIR 2012 SC 3336

6 https://main.sci.gov.in/pdf/aorexam/leading_cases/17.pdf
spaces have audio-visual recording capabilities to avoid coercion.

Mobile Forensic Vans: To improve forensic investigations, District Headquarters is outfitted with
vans that have the capacity to compare fingerprints, do quick blood tests, and capture videos.

Charge sheets on CDs: To cut down on case delays in Sessions Court proceedings, charge sheets on
CDs must be submitted electronically.

Transcription Machines: Automating the transcription of audio-recorded statements in criminal

Evidence Recording: To facilitate correct witness reference by appeal courts, all criminal courts
ought to be outfitted with tamper-proof audio recording technology for the purpose of recording
witness testimonies.

CONCLUSION

Procedural law and substantive law are mutually reinforcing. A strong procedural framework is
required to ensure that substantive law is implemented correctly. A well-crafted procedural law
makes substantive law meaningful, current, and easily comprehensible for the general public. Since
the introduction of digital technology, paper-based documents have become less important, which
has made it necessary to amend the nation's procedural laws. To specify with precision the term
‘influential person in public life’ is a complex task. It is a wide and nebulous term.7 The whole
object of specifying influential persons in public life as a category is to enable the Police and
Judicial Officers concerned to keep track of cases involving such persons and to endeavour to avoid
delays and bottlenecks in the way of speedy investigation and trial. It must be left to the Police/
Judicial Officers concerned to identify such persons creating delays and obstacles. Instead of
drawing up an exhaustive list of the so-called influential persons, a broad indication as to whose
cases should come up for special attention is sufficient. An illustrative list of the influential persons
in public life is perhaps more appropriate.8

In cases involving massive financial frauds and the misappropriation of public monies by
individuals holding public office or in corporate management, special courts are frequently
established. As far as feasible, the investigation must be finished in three months, and it must be
finished no later than six months. Within a month, the charge sheet and the necessary, correctly
indexed documents must be filed. a copy of the preliminary charge sheet for SP/SSP review.

The administration of criminal justice must be impartial, and different treatment of different
accused classes is not permissible. Generally speaking, the fact that the accused are public figures
holding powerful positions within the government shouldn't be a reason to design a unique
investigation or trial process for them. It is necessary to consider the matter from the standpoint of
Article 14 as well and avoid the Article's dimensions.

7 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/150890944/
8 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39463074/