TOPIC

ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE POLICE TO THE PUBLIC

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

DR. JULIAN SEAL PASARI SHIVAM GUPTA
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR SEMESTER IV- A
CRIMINAL LAW ROLL NO. 889

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH

IN LAW, RANCHI
RESEARCH PROBLEM
 Through this paper I will emphasize the accountability of the police to the public, for the way
that police treat people in the light of police investigating power vis-à-vis the idea of fair trial.
I have analysed three leading cases on the subject, namely the landmark case of Nandini
Satpathy v. P. L. Dani and P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of
Gujarat.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

 What powers have police to investigate?

 What is the scope of fair trial in case of Indian scenario?

 What can be suggestions to ensure fair trial?

OBJECTIVES

Through this project I aim to:

1. Discuss the power given to police force to investigate a case vis-a-vis the scope of just
and fair trial to the common man.
2. Discuss different suggestions which in my opinion is essential to provide just and fair
trial to the common masses.
3. Highlight the doctrine of fair trial in the light of Indian scenario and the power
distributed to different agencies to investigate a case.
4. Analyse some leading cases on the topic.

HYPOTHESIS

My project work basically deals with the judicial scrutiny of the concept of police
investigation and the right to a just and fair trial for the accused or the victim’s relatives.
Police investigation and fair trial are two intertwined concepts that have to coexist during the
process of investigation and trial. A proper and efficient investigation is required to bring out
the truth and a fair and just trial is also a necessity in order to ensure that the offender is
punished. Hence, police investigation and right to a fair trial have a profound relationship or
influence on each other.

INTRODUCTION
 In democratic societies, the police are accountable for many things. Most prominently, police
are in charge of the effectiveness with which they deal with crime and disorder, also for the
legality, professionalism, and respect with which they treat people. The right to a fair trial and
justice is a norm of international human rights law designed to guard individuals from the
unlawful and arbitrary curtailment or deprivation of other basic rights and freedoms, the most
prominent of which are the right to life and liberty of the person. It is guaranteed under
Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1, which
provides that “everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing & justice by a
competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” It is within the light of
this factor police were invested with tons of power. This unbridled power of the police had
put a shadow over the common citizen to urge a just and fair trial which was also envisaged
in our constitution.2 When this right is violated, people innocent of any crime face conviction,
imprisonment and even capital punishment. The justice system itself loses credibility. It is
within the light of all these arguments that I will be able to emphasize on the difficulty that
it’s fundamental to democratic societies that police power, including the powers to arrest, to
question, and to use lethal or non-lethal force, be closely regulated, often through the
mechanism of an independent judiciary, and ultimately be subject to civilian control through
democratic institutions or organizations. Remedies for the abuse of police power are scattered
throughout the system and are applied in both criminal and civil law contexts. An
independent judiciary is meant to be the guarantor and enforcer of fundamental rights. The
judiciary is timid, and political imperatives or other demands of the state may on occasion
override judges and the law system. Remedies for misuse of police power are often weak or
inconsistently enforced.

Thus through this project i will be able to discuss the facility given to police to investigate a
case vis a vis scope of just and fair trial to the commoner .Through this project I will be able
to also discuss different suggestion which in my opinion is important to supply just and fair
trial to the common masses. At an equivalent time I will be able to also highlight the doctrine
of fair trial within the light of Indian scenario and therefore the power distributed to different
agencies to investigate a case.

1
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN General Assembly resolution 2200A
(XXI), December 16, 1966, entered into force March 23, 1976
2
http://www en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_a_fair_trial
POWER OF POLICE TO INVESTIGATE:- The expression "investigation" has been defined in
Section 2(h) of the Code as under : "(h) "investigation" includes all the proceedings under
this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a Policeman or by a person (other than
a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate during this behalf;"

The term “investigation” has been defined in the case of H. N. Rishbad v. State of Delhi3,
where the meaning and the scheme of the Code with regard to investigation have been laid
down. In that case court also sees into the scope or of police power to investigate a case.
Under the Code "Investigation" consists generally of the following steps:-

(1) Proceeding to the spot,

(2) Establish of the facts and circumstances of the case

(3) Discovery and arrest of the suspected offender,

(4) Collection of evidence concerning to the commission of the offence which can consist of
(a) the examination of varied persons (including the accused) and therefore the reduction
of their statements into writing, if the officer thinks fit (b) the search of places or seizure
of things needed necessary for the investigation and to be produced at the trial, and

(5) Formation of the opinion as to whether on the fabric collected there’s a case to put the
accused before a Magistrate for trial and if so taking the necessary steps for an equivalent
by the filing of a charge sheet under Section 1734.

The scheme of the Code also shows that while it’s permissible for an officer in charge of a
police station to depute some subordinate officer to conduct a number of these steps within
the investigation, the responsibility for each one among these steps is that of the person
within the situation of the officer in charge of the police station, it having been clearly
provided in S. 1685 that when a subordinate officer makes an investigation he should report
the result of the investigation to the officer in charge of the police station. It is also clear that
the ultimate step within the investigation, viz., the formation of the opinion on to whether or
not there’s a case to put the accused on trial is to be that of the officer in charge of the police

3
MANU/SC/0049/1954, at para 16, visited on 06th jan, 2007

4
Report of police officer on the completion of investigation
5
report of investigation by subordinate police officer
station. There is no provision permitting delegation thereof but only a provision entitling
superior officers to supervise and participate under S. 551.

The principal agency for completing investigation of offences is police. Police can proceed to
investigate-

(1) On the information received from the other person because the commission of any
cognizable offence.

(2) Even without such information, but police have the rationale to suspect the commission of
any non cognizable offence

(3) On receiving any order from any judicial magistrate to empowered taking cognizance of
any offence under sec. 1906.

Furthermore according to S.39 duty has been sew the every one to inform the authorities if he
has any information on the commission of any offence. an individual is however exempt from
his duty if he features a reasonable excuse for not giving information. during this the burden
of proving the existence of such an excuse is on the person required to provide such
information. it's been further as long as if an individual intentionally omits to provide any
particular information than that person are going to be punishable under sec 176 and 202 of
Indian penal code. Furthermore Sec. 40 cast a duty on the village officers and village
residents to report certain interest the closest police station because most of the villages are
located at the faraway areas from the police station. At a similar time Sec 37 cast a duty on
the individuals to help the police if such assistance is demanded.

Information given by that individual is recorded consistent with the sec 154 7 of the CrPC.
The information recorded under section 154 is typically referred as to First Information
Report (FIR)8.  If on the basis of FIR the police station officer has reason to suspect the
commission of a cognizable offence, he's required to for with to send a report back to the
magistrate concerned. On the other hand within the case of non cognizable offence are
considered as private wrongs therefore code enjoins that a police officer shall not investigate
a no cognizable offence without the order of the competent magistrate. “Under sub-section
(1) of Section 154 of Cr. P.C., it shall be within the power and duty of the police officer to
register only a cognizable offence.” Though under Section 155 of Cr. P.C. a policeman can
6
cognizance of offences by magistrate
7
information in the cognizable offences
8
R.V.Kelkar, Lectures on Criminal Procedure (Eastern Book Co., Lucknow, 2004)
make an entry within the acceptable register about the information on non-cognizable
offence, such policeman shall not investigate a non-cognizable offence without the order of
the Magistrate.The facilities to investigate a cognizable offence is uncontrolled by the
magistrate, and is simply within the case of where the police decides not to investigate the
case that the magistrate can intervene and direct the police officer to investigation of the
case9. Now the police are given special power so on investigate the case. it's during this
respect station officer has given power under sec 160(1) of CrPC to make the presence of
attendance of a personal before him. Non compliance of with the summons issued by the
police office in charge could entail initiation of proceeding under sec. 188 of IPC 10. Police
were also given power to interrogate so on facilitate the collection of evidence and thus can
interrogate a private orally so on collect evidences regarding the case. . Furthermore if he
gives false information which he knows it to be false than he are getting to be punished under
section 193 of IPC.In the decision of Nandani Satpathy v. P.L.Dani11 it has been held that
‘any person alleged to be familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case’ in section
161(1) includes an accused person. “Now coming to the evidently value of statements made
to the police by the person. we will classify the statement made to the police in three broad
categories”:--

(1) a statement which has been recorded as FIR by the station in charge

(2) Statement recorded by the police during the course of investigation by concerned persons

(3) “Statement recorded by the police officer in charge but not falling under above (1) and (2)
category”.

Though the FIR isn't a substantive evidence; it are often wont to corroborate the informant
under section 157 of the evidence act, or to contradict him under section 145 of that act, if the
informant is named as a witness at the time of trial. A check has been made during this regard
that if the FIR is confessional nature it can't be proved against the accused informant, because
according to section 25 of the evidence act no confession made to the policeman are often
proved as against an individual accused of any offence.12 “Section 162 CrPC helps the

9
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/i2adjrft.htm

10
http://www.unhchr.ch/pdf/CHAPTER_6.pdf

11
(1978)2 SCC 424
12
Kantilal Shivabhai Thakkar v. state of Gujarat, AIR 1994 SC 178
accused to contradict the witness if during trial during a court the witness makes
contradictory statement.” the choice of the Supreme Court within the case of Harkirat Singh
v. State of Punjab13  provides an instance where the court may acquit an accused due to the
infirmity in recording the statements. The other statement, though made during the time
investigations were going on isn't hit by the prohibitory rule created by Sec. 162 of CrPC.
Therefore, such statement are often used for corroborating or contradicting purpose consistent
with the normal rules of evidence contained in Sec 145 and Sec 157 of the Evidence Act.
Thus from the above arguments we find that police enjoys a really wide power regarding
investigating a matter. it's within the light of of these arguments we will find that this
excessive power to the police has posed a challenge for conducting a just and fair trial
because all the powers are concentrated within the hand of police and it depend upon the
whim and fancies of a police officer to proceed during a particular case.

SCOPE OF FAIR TRIAL IN INDIAN SCENARIO

The Right to a fair trial is an basic right in all countries respecting the rule of law. It is clearly
proclaimed in Article Ten of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Sixth
Amendment of the US Constitution, Indian constitution and Article Six of the European
Convention of Human Rights, also as numerous other constitutions and declarations
throughout all the countries. “The justice system itself loses credibility” .

The required ingredients for a fair and just civil trial must include a competent, neutral and
detached as well as unbiased judge (an independent judge); the absence of any intimidation
of witnesses and ideally, an equal weight of arms, i.e. a level playing field in terms of legal
representation, such as a right to legal aid and advise for criminal defendants.

In order to dodge all possible challenges to the legal nature of the standards employed in
evaluating the fairness of a trial and justice, monitors should refer to norms of undisputedly
legal origin.

These are:

(i) The laws of the country during in which the trial is being held;

13
AIR 1976 SC 1272
(ii) The human rights treaties to which that country may be a party, and

(iii) “Norms of customary International law”14.

An important aspect for free of charge and fair trial is independent and impartial Judiciary
capable of ensuring fair trial proceedings isn’t only of importance to the rights and interests
of citizens. Indian constitution consists of several provisions so as to make sure provide the
citizens with free and fair trial. The first important thing is that the Art 20 of the constitution
of India which provides right to a private to to not be witness against itself. Again this
text provides an individual the safeguard to not be punished twice for an equivalent offence.
Similarly this text provides that nobody shall be punished with the offence quite that
prescribed within the law at the time of occurrence of the crime. The Supreme Court within
the case of Nandany Satpaty considered the parameters of sec. 161(2) of the CrPC and
therefore the scope and ambit of Art 20(3) of the constitution. Court held that Section 161
enables the police to look at the accused during investigation. “The prohibitive sweep of
Article 20(3) goes back to the police officer in charge interrogation not, as contended
commencing in court only”. Similarly there are several other provisions in several statues
which put a check on the investigating power of the police and provides right to the
overall public in order that there shouldn't be infringement of a private rights. The first and
foremost is that the non- recognition of the statement given by a private before the police
during the time of interrogation. Briefly meaning statement given by the individual before the
police while the police had no evidently value. Secondly, there's express bar on the police or
the investigating agency to urge the knowledge through any illegal means like coercion,
physical or mental torture etc. supreme court and different high courts have already held that
if any evidence has been received either through torture or any illegal means then that
evidence will haven't any evidence value within the eye of law. Thirdly, it had been as long
as the individual arrested by the police or any investigating officer must be produced before
the magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest. Fourthly, an individual should have immediate
recourse to his lawyer so on to get legal advice from his layer. Similarly a duty have been
sew the state so as order to provide free legal aid to those people that can’t avail the services
of lawyer on their own15. At the similar time code of criminal procedure doesn’t confer the
power to investigate on every police officer. “According to Sec. 156 only an officer- in –

14
The provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (UN General Assembly resolution
217A (III), December 10, 1948
15
Art 39(A) of the constitution of India
charge of a police station is empowered to investigate of the FIR” 16. “As noted by the Human
Rights Committee generally Comment No. 13,” the principle of presumption of innocence
means that:-- “the burden of proof of the charge is on the prosecution and therefore
the accused has the benefit of doubt.” No guilt are often presumed until the charge has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt. “Further, the presumption of innocence signifies a right to
be treated in accordance with this principle.” “It is, therefore, a duty for all public authorities
to refrain from prejudging the result of a trial”. The right to presumption of innocence may be
a right which, like other rights contained within the Convention, “must be interpreted in such
a way as to guarantee rights which are practical and effective as against to theoretical and
illusory”17

 Thus we found that there are some provisions made for free of charge and fair trial of a
private. But watching the general situation we discover that the powers of the police and
other investigating agencies are comparatively significantly taking into the account of
provision of just and fair trial. Therefore the necessity of the hour is to revamp the general the
entire situation in order that the system prevalent becomes far more people friendly.

SUGGESTIONS TO ENSURE FAIR TRIAL

After studying the various rights available to the common masses and at the same time power
given to the investigating agencies are quite wide. Mallimath committee in its
recommendation and suggestions have suggested several measures in order to make the
system more transparent and more accountable as well easily for common man. In my
opinion several things need to be incorporated in the present system and law so that it could
able to face the challenges of the present time.

 Establishment of E-crime Clearing House-Establishment of E-crime Clearing

House will be be an important step because it will help in the early detection of the
white collar crime. It is unacceptable to know that police forces lack the basic
requisite to deal with such type of crime.

 Separation of Investigation From Police:- Power of police can be restricted and at

the same time professionalism could be introduced in the investigation process with
the introduction of separate agency for the purpose.
16
supra note 19
17
Eur. Court HR, Case of Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A, No. 308,
p.16, para. 35
  Right to Appeal Against The Order of Court:- At present victims only enjoy only
one right i.e. engaging a lawyer only for assisting the prosecution.

 Need To Train The Police In Human Rights And Sensitive Them With Regard
To Civilian Rights Of The Ordinary People: - According to me the second step
should be giving police the basic training in order to deal with the matter so that they
could be mode more accountable and unbaised.
 Curb The Misuse Of Power Of Arrest By Police:- The National Police
Commission had even observed in its third report that the power of arrest is one of the
sources of police corruption. . Incorporation of the Supreme Court guidelines issued
in Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India18 and the Malimath
Committee recommendations19. The guidelines include, inter alia, the directive to
police to maintain a list of lawyers capable of handling the case of rape victims and to
provide them help in rehabilitation.

 To Codify The Guidelines Issued By The Supreme Court In Several Cases- To

prevent abuse of the authority and protect the rights of people arrested:- another major
step should be codifying the decision of the supreme court as given by the code from
time to time regarding police power and just and fair trial.

 Providing A Copy Of The FIR To The Accused- At the same time providing FIR
within 12 hours will ensure that no further manipulation is done with the report.

 Making Police Personally Responsible For Abuse And Excesses: - If a police

officer is found to be guilty of torture either physical or mental or in other way tries to
influence the accuse which is forbidden by the law in order to get his statement then
that police personal will be made personally liable for that act.

 Compensation For The Victims Of Abuse Of Power And For Health Services
Within The Police Station- According to this suggestion there should be provision of
compensation for the people who have suffered from the misuse of power of
investigating agencies as well as those who have suffered from committing of that
crime.

18
AIR 2001 SC 2762
19
SUBMITTED ITS REPORT IN 2001, PART XI, Sec 4 talks about the same problem
 If we able to implement these suggestion then we can say that we could able to establish a
well settled dynamic system which is capable of dealing with all the matters.

CASE ANALYSIS

Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani & Anr. 20- The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cuttack,
filed compliant against the appellant, the former Chief Minister of Orissa under Section 179
I.P.C., before the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Cuttack. Thereupon the
Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons for appearing against the
accused. The wide submissions, unsuccessfully made before the High Court, was that the
charge upon a failure to response interrogations by the police but this charge was not
sustained because the Article 20(3) of the Constitution and the immunity Under Section
161(2) of the Cr. P. Code were broad enough to safe her in her refusal. The plea of
unconstitutionality and illegality, put forward by this pre-emptive proceeding was refuted by
the High Court.

JUDGMENT:- The Court held that under Articles 20 (3) and Article 22 (1) of Indian
Constitution that no person can be compelled to be witness against himself. This right
operates in police interrogation also. Since police has power to examine witness by virtue of
Section 161 but such authority does not extend to compel such witness to give testimony
against him.

ANALYSIS: This decision puts the victim right on the different footing. This case puts the
superiority of the fundamental rights of every person over the procedural laws. Court in its
judgment also puts the level of criteria for just and fair trial on different footing. This case
will go a long way in defining the individual right vis a vis right of the investigating agencies.

P.Vijayan v. State of Kerala and Anr. 21- The appellant was retired IPS officer aged about 85
years. He enjoyed a substantial reputation as an IPS officer and had retired because the
Director General of Police, Kerala. In the course of his tenure as a senior policeman , he
controlled the Naxalite militancy which was rampant in Kerala within the 1970s. In the
1970s, Naxalites under the banner of CPI(ML), a militant organization,
had haunted the explanation for the poor through armed appraisal and violence. The said
organization committed various heinous murders and dacoities including attacking police

20
(1978)2 SCC 424
21
AIR2010SC663, decided on 27-01-2010.
stations and murdering innocent policemen. During arrest police did encounter but no
allegation for fake encounter but Only within the year 1998, reports appeared in various
newspapers in Kerala that the killing of Varghese in the year 1970 was during a fake
encounter which senior cops are involved within the said fake encounter. Only in the year
1998, reports appeared in various newspapers in Kerala that the killing of Varghese within
the year 1970 was during a fake encounter which senior police officers are involved within
the said fake encounter. . By order dated 27.01.1999, learned single Judge of the supreme
court of Kerala passed an order directing the CBI to register an FIR on the facts
disclosed within the counter affidavit filed by Constable Ramachandran Nair. Accordingly,
the CBI registered an FIR on 03.03.1999 during which Constable Ramachandran Nair was
named as accused No. 1, Mr. Lakshmana was named as accused No. 2 and Mr. P. Vijayan,
the appellant, was named as accused No. 3 for an offence under Section 302 IPC read with
Section 34 IPC. After investigation, the CBI filed a charge-sheet before the Special Judge
(CBI), Ernakulam on 11.12.2002 wherein all the above mentioned persons were named as
Accused 1 to Accused 3 respectively for an offence under Sections 302 and 34 Indian Penal
Code. By pointing out various reasons, his meritorious service and nothing whispered for a
period of twenty years, the appellant filed a petition on 17.05.2007 under Section 227 of the
CrPC for discharge. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the said petition and passed an order
for framing charge for offence under Sections 302 and 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the aforesaid
order, the appellant filed a Criminal Revision Petition before learned the High court of
Kerala. The learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the said Criminal Revision
Petition.

The main issue was whether the Trial Judge as well as the High Court committed any error in
rejecting the claim of the Appellant. The Supreme Court held, after evaluating the materials
produced by the prosecution and after considering the probability of the case, that there exists
sufficient grounds against the Appellant and another accused to frame a charges. It affirmed
the order of the Trial Court and the High Court.

Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 22 -This case relates to the killing of the
appellant’s brother, Sohrabuddin Sheikh in a fake encounter and disappearance of his sister-
in-law Kausarbi at the hands of the Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS) Gujarat Police and Rajasthan
Special Task Force (RSTF). The Director General of Police, Gujarat, directed Ms. Geetha

22
MANU/SC/0024/2010, decided on 12-01-2010.
Johri, Inspector General, Police (Crime), inquiring related to the incident. The writ petitioner
further seeks a direction or ordered for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation
into the alleged abduction and fake encounter of the brother of the writ petitioner
Sohrabuddin by the Gujarat Police Authorities. The writ petitioner further seeks a writ of
habeas corpus to produce Kausarbi, the sister-in-law of petitioner. Later because of pressure
from the State Government, Ms. Johri was replaced by Mr. Rajneesh Rai, Deputy Inspector
General, as the Investigating Officer in respect of the fake encounter by the police. The Writ
Petitioner had, on an earlier occasion, filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India, praying for a direction to the Gujarat police to produce Kausarbi and for a fair and
unbaised investigation in both the episodes by the CBI so that the matter goes beyond the
influence of the local police. Investigation was conducted and it was found that the body of
Kausarbi was cremated on 29th of November, 2005 in Illol village. The motives for killings
was attributed as "name, fame and promotion", in case of Sohrabuddin's death and
"destruction of evidence", in Kausarbi's case. Ms. Johri also stated that the investigation had
been carried on in a fair and impartial manner under her direct supervision. After eight Action
Taken Reports were submitted, the writ petition came up for final hearing for the purpose of
deciding whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and
proper to transfer the case to the CBI Authorities for the purpose of investigation into the
allegations made on behalf of the writ petitioner.Accordingly, the learned senior counsel
appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that even if the charge sheet was submitted it was
still open to the court to direct investigation to be made by the CBI Authorities and
accordingly in view of the above position in law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after having
heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the eight
Action Taken Reports submitted by the State Police Authorities, who are themselves
involved in such crime, came to the conclusion that they are unable to accept that the
investigation at this stage cannot be handed over to the CBI Authorities or any other
independent agency.

This decision clearly helps the writ petitioner for handing to the investigation to the CBI
Authorities or the other independent agency. It's an admitted position within the present case
that the accusations are directed against the local police personnel during which High Police
officials of the State of Gujarat are made the accused. Therefore, it might be proper for the
writ petitioner or maybe the general public to return forward to mention that if the
investigation administered by the police personnel of the State of Gujarat is completed , the
writ petitioner and therefore their relations would be highly prejudiced and the investigation
would also not come to an end with proper finding. Hence, it might be proper and interest of
justice would be better served if the investigation is directed to be administered by the CBI
Authorities, therein case CBI authorities would be an appropriate authority to investigate the
case of Sohrabuddian. It can't be said that after the chargesheet is submitted, the
court isn't empowered, in an appropriate case, handy over the investigation to an agency like
CBI.

Hence the Court held that the CBI authorities shall investigate all aspects or directions of the
case concerning the killing of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi including the alleged
possibility of a bigger conspiracy.

CONCLUSION

Across the globe, democratic governments articulate and guarantee general, fundamental
rights of citizens in relation to the police, but in some places, the legal and institutional
structures to enforce those rights are incomplete. In some places, remedies for abuse of police
power can be inconsistently enforced.
It is in the light of all the arguments we can find that to strengthen the expertise, resources,
and independence of civilian oversight of police, democratic governments are increasingly
creating specialized, permanent structures to undertake this work. These include the police
ombudsmen appointed in several states of Brazil as well as in Northern Ireland, the civilian
complaint review boards, monitors, and inspectors general established in many cities in the
United States, and the Independent Complaints Directorate established as part of the South
African constitution.
Therefore we can say that Just and fair trial is very important ingredient of judicial system
and the same have been recognized by our constitutional framers. Therefore we can trace the
seed of fair trial in the various provisions in the constitution like Art 20 and 22. The same
have been recognized by the Supreme Court as well as different high courts as the essential
ingredient for the establishment of full flagged dynamic legal system which can effectively
face the challenges of the present times.

Though the prevailing system consists a very wide area and tries to cover all the sphere but
with the changing time the need has been felt to amend the present system so that it becomes
more dynamic and could able to withstand the pressure put on this system due to changing
 situation. It is in the light of this aspect that Mallimath Committee has been set up which
gives up its recommendation in order to reform the justice system of the country.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

WEB SITES VISITED

 http://www.westlaw.com
 http://manupatra.com
 http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/i2adjrft.htm
 http://www.unhchr.ch/pdf/CHAPTER_6.pdf
 http://www en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_a_fair_trial
 http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20040125.htm
 http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1843508.htm
 http://www.legislationline.org/?tid=105
Books:

1. Field’s Commentary on Law of Criminal Procedure (Revised by Gopal Chaturvedi, Delhi Law
House, Delhi, 12th edition, 2001).
2. Justice Y.V. Chandrachud & V. R. Manohar, Ratanlal &Dhirajlal – The Code of Criminal
Procedure (Wadhwa & Co., Nagpur, 17th edition., 2009).
3. P.M. Bakshi and S.C. Sarkar, The Law of Criminal Procedure, (India Law House, New Delhi, 8th
edition, 2004).

4. R.V.Kelkar, Lectures on Criminal Procedure (Eastern Book Co., Lucknow, 2004)