View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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
Indrani Barpujari, Ph.D.
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
Indrani Barpujari, Ph.D.
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
4.2.1. Case Load, Disposal Rate and Pendency ............................................................................. 34
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
4.3.1. Case Load, Disposal Rate and Pendency ............................................................................. 40
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).
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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%
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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).
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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).
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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”.
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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.
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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:
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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:
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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.
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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.
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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.
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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.
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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;
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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.
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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)
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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.
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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)
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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)
Cases pending at beginning of year
82257 172781 22825
New cases taken up for prosecution
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
Cases pending at year end
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
Conviction Rate (InPercentage)
Acquittal Rate (InPercentage)
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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)
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
Cases pending at beginning of year
448691 73281 14203
New cases taken up for prosecution
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
Cases pending at year end
477605 76494 5393
Table 5: Cases in Subordinate/ Tehsil Level Courts in 2017
Source: Annual Administrative Report 17-18 of the Directorate of Prosecution, Government
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
Conviction Rate (InPercentage)
Acquittal Rate (InPercentage)
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
CMYPDP Research Associates
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
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
CMYPDP Research Associates
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
Bhopal Gwalior Shajapur Umaria Vidisha
New cases (2015-17)
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
CMYPDP Research Associates
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
Bhopal Gwalior Shajapur Umaria Vidisha
2015
2016
2017
4
14
27
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2015 2016 2017
Rajgarh
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
Bhopal Gwalior Shajapur Umaria Vidisha
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
Total cases Disposed
Conviction Acquital Withdrawal
Panna (2017-18)
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
34
4.2.1. Case Load, Disposal Rate and Pendency
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
Source: Information Collected from Respective District Prosecution Office by CMYPDP Research Associate
Figure 20: Total Case Load in District/ Sessions Courts in Panna, Rajgarh and
Balaghat
Source: Information Collected from Respective District Prosecution Office by CMYPDP Research Associate
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
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
Source: Information Collected from Respective District Prosecution Office by CMYPDP Research Associate
Figure 22: Total Volume of New Cases Taken Up in District/ Sessions Court in Panna,
Rajgarh and Balaghat
Source: Information Collected from Respective District Prosecution Office by CMYPDP Research Associate
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
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
Pending Cases in District/ Sessions Court at Year End
Balaghat
303
1586
480
1563
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Panna Rajgarh
Pending Cases in District/ Sessions Court at Year End
2017
2018
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
Source: Information Collected from Respective District Prosecution Office by CMYPDP Research Associate
Figure 28: Cases in District/ Sessions Court Disposed Off in Panna, Rajgarh and Balaghat
Source: Information Collected from Respective District Prosecution Office by CMYPDP Research Associate
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
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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.
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
40
4.3.1. Case Load, Disposal Rate and Pendency
Figure 29: Total Case Load at Tehsil Level for Four districts in 2015-17
Source: Information Collected from Respective District Prosecution Office by CMYPDP Research Associate
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
Source: Information Collected from Respective District Prosecution Office by CMYPDP Research Associate
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)
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
42
Figure 32: Cases Pending at the End of Each Year at Tehsil Level in Select Four Districts
Source: Information Collected from Respective District Prosecution Office by CMYPDP Research Associate
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
Source: Information Collected from Respective District Prosecution Office by CMYPDP Research Associate
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
Bhopal Gwalior Shajapur Umaria
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
Total cases Disposed
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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”.
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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,
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
Source: Annual Administrative Report 17-18 of the Directorate of Prosecution, Government
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
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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.
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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.
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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.
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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.
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
Deputy Director 1 0 1
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
Assistant Grade II 1 1 0
Assistant Grade III 8 2 6
Peon 2 0 2
Total 30 18 12
Bhopal
Name of Post Total Number of Sanctioned Posts
Presently Filled Vacant
Deputy Director 2 2 0
District Prosecution Officer (D.P.O.)
1 1 0
Additional D.P.O. 4 4 0
Assistant D.P.O. 51 44 7
Pre-Conviction Detective (P.C.D.)
2 1 1
Additional P.C.D. 2 0 2
Assistant Grade I 2 0 2
Assistant Grade II 4 3 1
Assistant Grade III 18 5 13
Total 86 60 26
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
55
Gwalior
Name of Post Total Number of Sanctioned Posts
Presently Filled Vacant
Deputy Director 2 0 2
District Prosecution Officer (D.P.O.)
2 1 1
Additional D.P.O. 3 2 1
Assistant D.P.O. 41 32 9
P.C.D. 1 0 1
A.P.C.D. 1 0 1
Assistant Grade II 2 1 1
Assistant Grade II 4 0 4
Assistant Grade III 13 9 4
Peon 4 0 4
Total 73 45 28
Panna
Name of Post Total Number of Sanctioned Posts
Presently Filled Vacant
Deputy Director 1 0 1
District Prosecution Officer (D.P.O.)
1 0 1
Additional D.P.O. 1 1 0
Assistant D.P.O. 6 6 0
Pre-Conviction Detective (P.C.D.)
1 0 1
Additional P.C.D. 1 0 1
Assistant Grade II 1 0 1
Assistant Grade III 7 6 1
Peon 1 0 1
Total 20 13 7
Rajgarh
Name of Post Total Number of Sanctioned Posts
Presently Filled Vacant
Deputy Director 1 0 1
District Prosecution Officer (D.P.O.)
1 1 0
Additional D.P.O. 1 0 1
Assistant D.P.O. 14 13 1
P.C.D. 1 0 1
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
56
A.P.C.D. 1 0 1
Assistant Grade III 8 4 4
Total 27 18 9
Shajapur
Name of Post Total Number of Sanctioned Posts
Presently Filled Vacant
Deputy Director 1 1 0
District Prosecution Officer (D.P.O.)
1 1 0
Additional D.P.O. 2 2 0
Assistant D.P.O. 17 9 8
Pre-Conviction Detective (P.C.D.)
1 1 0
Additional P.C.D. 1 1 0
Assistant Grade II 1 1 0
Assistant Grade III 9 5 4
Total 33 21 12
Umaria
Name of Post Total Number of Sanctioned Posts
Presently Filled Vacant
Deputy Director 1 0 1
District Prosecution Officer (D.P.O.)
1 1 0
Additional D.P.O. 1 1 0
Assistant D.P.O. 7 7 0
Assistant Grade-II 1 1 0
Pre-Conviction Detective (P.C.D.)
1 0 1
Additional P.C.D. 1 0 1
Clerks/ CRPC 8 3 5
Peon 1 0 1
Total 22 13 9
Vidisha
Name of Post Total Number of Sanctioned Posts
Presently Filled Vacant
Deputy Director 1 1 0
District Prosecution Officer (D.P.O.)
1 1 0
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
57
Additional D.P.O. 1 1 0
Assistant D.P.O. 15 13 2
Pre-Conviction Detective (P.C.D.)
1 0 1
Additional P.C.D. 1 0 1
Assistant Grade II 1 0 1
Assistant Grade III 10 7 3
Total 31 23 8
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
Cases presented this year
30 25 11 15 15 9 12
Total cases 88 71 30 19 30 18 46
Total disposed this year
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
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
60
Annexure III: Cases (IPC and others) presented in District/ Sessions
Court 2015
Bhopal Gwalior Shajapur Umaria
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
Cases presented this year
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
Cases presented this year
7543 16572 9046 181 771 281 92
Total cases 8335 43462 27840 551 2178 674 464
Total disposed this year
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
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
62
Annexure-IV: Tehsil Level Cases of Districts 2015
Bhopal Gwalior Shajapur Umaria
Pending from before 1539 4176 3036 451
Cases presented this year
1235 1839 3132 1006
Total cases 2774 6015 6168 1457
Total disposed this year
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
Cases presented this year
1257 2230
3048 895
Total cases 2938 6382
6150 1484
Total disposed this year
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
Cases presented this year
1379 2027 1560 6736 3160 1242
Total cases 3516 6133 1855 19664 6688 2430
Total disposed this year
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
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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
A Review of the Public Prosecution System in Madhya Pradesh
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.
Recommended