Custody not a substitute for conviction: SC
NEW DELHI: The state cannot use its might to put someone behind the bars as a substitute for final conviction, the Supreme Court observed on Tuesday, expressing concern over what it termed a “growing trend”.
The observation came in the course of an interesting hearing on a point of law — when does the 60-day window for filing a charge-sheet as laid down by the Code of Criminal Procedure start, on the day the accused are remanded to custody or the day after?
A bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy was critical of the “new philosophy” applied by the police and the prosecution to try and keep people in jail at least for a few days as a form of punishment prior to proving their guilt.
“Putting someone behind bars cannot be a substitute for final conviction. Ultimately, the philosophy now seems to have become, “let us keep someone behind bars at least for some days even if there is no conviction in the end”. The state cannot use its might like this,” observed the bench.
It commented on the independence of investigating agencies, regretting that those working in these agencies were not adequately assessing the kinds of cases that should really go to trial since they were also influenced by several other factors.
“In true sense, an independent agency, which is supposed to take a call on what should go to trial and what not, is also influenced by several other things... some {officers} are more interested about what after retirement for them,” remarked the bench.
It added: “If every case goes to a trial, the real time to examine most serious cases is reduced. Corruption cases and CBI {Central Bureau of Investigation} cases take the longest. And the person who is being convicted after 20 years, will tell us I am 70 now, don’t send me to jail. All this needs to be corrected.”
The bench also wondered if the government carried out any “legislative impact assessment” before making bounced cheques and traffic violations crimes to be tried by the courts.
“These are institutional issues that nobody thinks of. Our good old jurisprudence on criminal laws, bail etc have been thrown away,” rued the court.
The comments by the apex court came when the court was hearing bail pleas of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation (DHFL) promoters Kapil Wadhawan and Dheeraj Wadhwan, who have been jailed in a money laundering case registered against them by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
According to CBI and ED, Yes Bank invested around ₹3,700 crore in short-term non-convertible debentures of DHFL between April and June 2018 as a quid pro quo between Yes Bank’s co-promoter Rana Kapoor and the Wadhawans.