Analytical Note

Analytical Note
On
POLICE-MAGISTRACY RELATIONSHIP
Saumitra Mohan
A healthy relationship between the police and the magistracy is sine qua non for a sound law and order system anywhere in the country and it cannot be different for the district of Jalpaiguri where this relationship is continuing in the same fashion as the British left it. While at many places, particularly in metropolitan areas like Delhi and Mumbai, this relationship has gone a sea change and is marked with professionalism, this relationship has been continuing in a more or less ad hocish fashion in the countryside and perhaps same is true for the district of Jalpaiguri.
Even though this relationship is informed with duality and a lot different in different dyads namely Police-Executive Magistracy and Police-Judicial Magistracy but the basic fundamentals or functionality of the relationship remains the same. The relationship, on the surface, is no doubt that of respect and is a legal relationship and each component is bound by the specific duties assigned under the law. For a proper law and order system, it is a desideratum that the police and the magistracy act in tandem with each other. The police are supposed to aid and assist the magistracy by executing latter’s orders meaning thereby that the magistracy would be toothless and ineffectual without effective and efficient support from the police. A dysfunctional police-magistracy relationship can easily eventuate in the deterioration of the law and order system as instanced by the state of Bihar.
So, with relation to a cognizable offence, copy of the FIR (First Information Report) should be placed before the judicial magistrate within 24 hours of lodging of the same. Whenever there is an arrest, the relationship with the magistracy immediately comes into play. Every action of the police has to be entered in the General Diary and the magistrates have power to inspect any police station in case of any foul play. In fact, whenever there is a complaint before the magistracy, latter has to seek report from the former about the bare facts of the case, about the situation on the ground e.g. in case of a dispute under sections 145 or 147, the magistrate, before delivering his judgement, is bound to seek independent reports from the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer as well as the Officer-in-charge of the police station of the area. It is at this stage that these officers are often alleged to misuse their powers by making the interested parties grease their palm to write a favourable report and make convenient alterations in the case diary. All this is done so smartly that the magistrates are often in the dark about all this, about basing his judgement on a doctored report but that is something he can’t help. Whatever be the case, the magistrate is supposed to call for all such requisite reports about the materials facts of the case before playing the Daniel.
The police is duty bound to apprise the magistrate about the state of investigation whenever there is a demand for bail as bail should be granted only if there are sufficient grounds for the same otherwise the magistrate should reject the bail petition straightaway. It is suggested that bail should be awarded to the defendant or the accused only after seeing the Case Diary and if the same is not available or is not made available despite repeated notices to the I/C of a police station, the same should be brought to the notice of higher authorities including Superintendent of Police rather than granting bail using police’s incapability or inability to make Case Diary available.
It has often been seen and experienced here that lack of sincere and positive investigation by the police coupled with lack of sophisticated forensic support lead to the acquittal of the accused notwithstanding the fact that it is well within the knowledge that he or she is the culprit. Often the post-mortem or FSL reports are not asked for or not given necessary weightage or importance, which is not advisable. Also, poor investigation often weakens the prosecution case leading to the defeat of justice. It has been suggested that there should be institutionalized relationship between the prosecution and the investigating agency as the very fact that presently the two function in isolation leads to poor conviction rate and defeat of justice. Again, the illiterate and uneducated witnesses are not properly motivated and groomed to state the truth and frequent depositions in a long-drawn case often so tires out witnesses and gives so much of time to the accused to be able to influence the witnesses to depose falsely, to suborn, much to the detriment of the tenets of justice. Quite often, it has also come to be seen that the police refuse to lodge the FIR or lodges it after sufficient delay. Quite often police in connivance with influential litigants or criminals deliberately subvert the investigation or plant doctored evidence much to the detriment of the ethos of equity and justice.
Here, a rickety judicial system constrained with the shortage of adequate number of judges as well as adequate resources to meet the ends of justice are also responsible for the present state of affairs. The judiciary at all levels is not only burdened with excessive number of cases but does not even have bare financial resources to pay for the traveling allowances and other essential expenses of the court.
The police have to supply the magistracy with a memo of evidence at the time of bail. This memo of evidence is crucial in disposing off the bail petitions. But the magistracy can neither direct the police nor interfere with its investigation on any case, as the same can prove detrimental to the very career of the former. But there are ways whereby magistracy can influence the investigation in its own ways e.g. when the Magistrate finds any irregularity with the case diary or that the case diary is carelessly or perfunctorily made, then s/he can bring this to the notice of the higher police authorities and request the same for investigation to be conducted afresh by somebody else or can give any other suggestions and directions that s/he fits correct with reference to the case in view.
The magistracy usually, as a convention, sees to it that in case of conviction or successful completion of any case, any positive role played by the police is duly recognized and hence, a few laudatory words of praise are unfailingly mentioned at the end of the judgement delivered. This is a good practice and bodes well for the police-magistracy relationship.
It has often been felt and suggested that there should be a separate investigation agency, which should not be burdened with any other duty, which may interfere with the efficient performance of the duties assigned to it. Also, the police should not be saddled with excessive VIP duties as police’s over preoccupation with VIP duties, major crimes and structural law and order problems e.g. sit-in, dharna, strike, raasta-roko, traffic jam, bandh etc lead to relegating the very small, but very important and basic problems of common people like a minor spat, a fracas, landlord-tenant problems which predominate their life most. It has also been suggested that police can be empowered with some magisterial powers to deliver spot justice by imposing petty fines on the spot or to deal with similar other petty problems of the people. Though, the advisability of such empowerment of police can be questioned given the dangers of misuse of the same but something ingenuous along this line could be thought of, discussed and debated to improve the delivery of justice and the overall law and order system.
One thing, which seems to be acting as a thorn in the flesh of police-magistracy relationship is the role played by the lawyers. Even though lawyers are an important cog in the law and order wheel, the negative role often played by them often to the extent of subverting the very law and order machinery in collusion with some officials cannot be overlooked. Here, this insidious nexus seems to be working more viciously at the lower level where the clients involved are not so enlightened and educated about the convoluted and complex legal process and their own rights and duties. And this is what is taken advantage of by the vested interests. There are many ways one can see this subversion working e.g. by the way the provision of surety is misused where the lawyers have often been advising (in criminal cases) their clients to abscond by depositing the bail money with the surety which is later deposited with the court by the surety; the lawyers in collusion with lower-level police functionaries see to it that all accused are not arrested and the case, thus, lingers on untried for the three years in which case it has to be dropped as u/s 167 (5) Cr. P.C.
So, among many other suggestions, which can lead to the improvement of a better law and order system along with better justice delivery, there could be better forensic support coupled with better psycho-physical training to the police personnel to deal with various demands of their job. Also, it is felt that videography of the recording of statements of witnesses u/s 161 or 164 Cr.P.C. could better the extant law and order system. If not possible, videography should be made mandatory, at least, in very important cases so that the ethos and values of justice are not defeated. Videography, to a great extent, can take care of the problem of hostile witnesses. Also, there is a need for independent monitoring/vigilance agency to keep an overall guard over the functioning of law and order system.
Also, as far as possible and as soon as possible, an aggregate crime database of all the crime records including the antecedents of the criminals and accused with their scanned photographs should be created through a POLICENET or POLNET and the same should be connected through a Wide Area Network to facilitate better crime control and the consequent better law and order system.
So, for a healthy, well-oiled, efficient and effective police magistracy relationship leading to a sound law and order machinery, what is required that all the involved parties do their duties honestly and truthfully without compromising the requirements of justice.
From: Saumitra Mohan, IAS Probationer at Jalpaiguri, West Bengal. C/O, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JALPAIGURI-735101, WEST BENGAL.