Order was issued in 'exercise of power of superintendence': MP Lokayukta on 'closures'

BHOPAL

:

Madhya Pradesh

Lokayukta has responded to the notice issued by high court on a PIL challenging its standing order on ‘closures’ of investigations, saying that it was issued in 'exercise of power of superintendence'.

A PIL filed by social activist Satish Nayak through advocate Dhruv Verma has challenged Lokayukta's order dated October 11 wherein special police establishment (SPE) has been asked to not to file any ‘closures’ without prior approvals. Petition also seeks direction for implementation of the justice Malimath committee on reforms of the criminal justice system.

Lokayukta’s reply mentions Section 4 of The Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment (SPE) Act, 1947, which the organisation claims, has conferred the power of superintendence on

Lokayukta

over SPE.

“It was under this power that on May 18, 1992 the then Lokayukta Justice G P Singh had delegated the power to approve closure reports, sanction prosecution upon the DG of SPE, with respect to Class III and IV employees,” they have submitted. And, this liberty was given to decrease the workload

Explaining the reason behind issuance of ‘standing order’ Lokayukta has said that it had received a complaint, on an electronic device, raising grave concerns about credibility of investigations carried out with respect to class III and IV employees.

“It was found that various superintendent of police (SPs) of the SPE had closed 21 cases of class III and IV employees in a particular period. As per the complaint tenure of a particular DG was blamed, therefore closure reports filed between June 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020 were directed to be examined,” Lokayukta organisation said in its reply adding that scrutiny of cases with Bhopal and Sagar divisions are in process.

“Common lapse found in these closure reports was that prior to filing of closure report in special court, the investigating officer and its supervisory officer did not obtain any opinion of the deputy director prosecution deputed at the Bhopal office,” Lokayukta says in its reply.

Pointing out one of the cases, Lokayukta claimed the SPE had filed a closure overlooking a recommendation for chargesheet by the legal advisor. They said scrutiny of nine closures by Indore, Rewa and Jabalpur divisions are also under consideration.

Lokayukta submitted that either due to lack of knowledge or extraneous consideration, some officers misused power and authority given to them. “Hence to maintain the integrity of the organisation and in the interest of fair investigations, Lokayukta had modified the standing order,” Lokayukta said.

The organisation also claimed that the special public prosecutor of a special court can call back closure reports if there are lapses in the investigations with due permissions.

“It is submitted that if accused persons have been favored by investigating officers by conducting shoddy/incomplete investigation which is the foundation of the closure report in such scenario, the Lokayukta is duly bound in the matter, so that the misuse of power is curtailed and no culprit is left unfinished.

Lokayukta further submitted that “if any element of indiscretion on the part of police officials involved in the investigation with or without objective of favoring the accused person is present, The Lokayukta is within its jurisdiction to supervise the investigation without any exception. Therefore, such petitions will have the effect of saving corrupt public servants which are not in public interest rather it might promote further corrupt practice,”.

When contacted officials refused to comment, however some of them are of the opinion that ‘closures’ filed both by SPE as well as Lokayukta organizations should be examined to maintain a balance within the organisation. “If possible, cases of Class I and II closed by Lokayukta organisation could also be audited,” said an officer wishing anonymity.