80 pc of corruption cases ended in acquittals last 2 yrs
Lawyers say witnesses not competent, police not careful about panchnamas; Anti-Corruption Bureau says too much delay in trials
Maneka Rao
Over 80 per cent of the corruption cases decided by the courts in Mumbai last year and the year before have ended in acquittals.
All the cases were filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and involve government employees trapped while accepting bribes; the witnesses are also government employees.
In 2004, the ACB had done better — 28.26 per cent convictions, but this year so far the accused in five out of six cases have been acquitted. (SEE BOX)
So why is the rate of convictions so low? “When the trials in the cases begin, the spot witnesses, who are also government servants, are not competent and leave out details during their testimony. As a result, in most cases the accused go scot-free,” said a senior public prosecutor, Kalpana Chavan, who deals with corruption cases.
“Some spot witnesses also turn hostile. We send a report immediately after the judgment suggesting a departmental inquiry against them. But this has not acted as a deterrent as the punishments are minor. We have ordered a study and are trying to figure out the reasons for these acquittals,” said Joint Commissioner of Police, ACB, Hemant Karkare.
Lawyers explain that in a typical trap set in a corruption case, a spot witness accompanies the complainant to the public servant who has allegedly demanded a bribe. This witness is crucial as he sees the complainant handing over anthracin-coated currency notes — which on touching turn blue — to the bribe-taker. Another witness, again a government servant, then accompanies the undercover police, who rush to the spot to arrest the accused. This second witness also needs to observe the ‘marked’ notes and the anthracin powder on the hands of the accused.
The problem is that when the case goes to court, the witnesses don’t support the prosecution enough to secure a conviction.
“Also, the ACB officers, probably in sheer enthusiasm, often mess up the technicalities prescribed by the law. Often, the post-trap panchnamas are defective,” said advocate Unnikrishnan who appears as a defence lawyer in such cases.
“Simple details — like the currency notes had anthracin powder on them — are missing from the panchnama. Sometimes, the first witness removes the money from the pocket of the accused, which according to legal precedents, is the job of the second witness,’’ said Chavan.
Public prosecutors, who handle these cases, pointed out that another problem is that many of “the witnesses are class IV employees who do not understand the intricacies of the law”.
Admitting that the ACB has been failing in getting most of the accused convicted, Karkare said: “The major failing is the delay in the cases. It has been remedied to some extent after 2004, when the state established additional courts.’’
Chavan added: “Recently, I was handling a 1989 case. After 18 years, it is difficult for the witness to remember all details of the trap,” said Chavan.
There are three special courts in the city which handle these cases. Only one handles corruption cases exclusively.
URL – http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=232046