Seize properties of corrupt govt officials, says CJI

Chief justice of India KG Balakrishnan today favoured statutory provision for seizure of illegal properties and assets of government officials convicted in corruption cases. He also wanted specialised teams of lawyers to ensure that they will progressively develop expertise in prosecuting corruption-related cases.

"If a public official amasses wealth at the cost of public, then the state is justified in seizing such assets," Balakrishnan said at a national seminar on 'Fighting Crimes related to Corruption'.
    
"One prominent suggestion is the inclusion of a statutory remedy that will enable confiscation of properties belonging to persons who are convicted of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA)", the Chief Justice said.
    
The CJI said procedural delays like granting sanction and difficulty in marshalling large number of witnesses were the major hurdles in achieving meaningful convictions when the anti-corruption agencies was already finding it difficult to grapple with 9,000 pending cases due to shortage of designated courts.

"It is necessary (that) there should be a speedy manner of granting sanction. The prosecution becomes ineffective if the sanction is granted after 6-7 years," he said.

Balakrishnan expressed concern that CBI relies on large number of witnesses in the corruption cases instead of coming out with solid witnesses which unnecessary prolongs the trial of the case for 3 to 4 years. "Instead of having 8 to 10 witnesses, emphasis should be on having one solid witness to prove the case," he said.

However, dwelling on the PCA, the CJI said the foremost criticism of the law is that an investigating agency needs to obtain prior sanction from competent authority to initiate prosecution against a public servant which is delayed or denied by higher executive authorities.

"Even in instances where the investigating agencies have gathered substantial material to proceed against a person, it is felt that the necessary sanction is not given on account of extraneous considerations," he said.

Expressing concern that the country did not have an effective prosecuting agency, the CJI said there was a need for separation of prosecution function from the investigating functions of the CBI which has been a controversial issue.
    
"I understand that there has been considerable resistance to this suggestion, since investigating officers and prosecution lawyers need to work in close co-ordination.

"The real problem here is that CBI has been relying on government law officers and standing counsels to conduct the prosecutions whereas there is a need for retaining a regular team of lawyers which will progressively develop expertise in prosecuting corruption-related cases," Balakrishnan said.

He said, "having a specialised team of lawyers will also ensure that they thoroughly scrutinise the investigators' efforts in evidence-gathering, thereby improving the presentation of cases."

Speaking in the national seminar on 'Fighting Crimes related to Corruption,' Balakrishnan said:”If a public official amasses wealth at the cost of public, then the state is justified in seizing such assets.”

He also said, trial is being delayed in corruption cases, even when “investigators have substantial evidence”, due to delays and refusal of prosecution sanction by the government “on account of extraneous considerations,” the chief justice of India KG Balakrishnan said on Saturday.

The chief justice who inaugurated a two-day CBI conference on “Fighting crimes related to corruption,” said the provisions in the Prevention of Corruption Act which necessitate requirement of a sanction to initiate prosecution against a public servant, are breeding a climate of impunity.

“The legislative intent behind the requirement was to discourage frivolous complaints and vexatious litigation against public servants. However, these provisions contribute to a climate of impunity where the requisite sanction is either delayed or denied by higher executiveauthorities.”

“Even in instances where the investigating agencies have gathered substantial material…it is felt that the prosecution sanction is not given on account of extraneous considerations,” he said. In many cases aggrieved parties have approached the higher judiciary when the requisite sanctions have been denied despite production of incriminating  material, the chief justice stated.

“The quality of governance suffers when decisions are made on account of extraneous considerations relating to political patronage, kinship or caste and linguistic identity,” he said.

The event which is the second CBI conference on corruption in a short span had participation of 60 special judges dealing with anti-corruption cases from across the country besides 100 other CBI anti-corruption officers.

The chief justice expressed his concern over low standards of prosecutors handling CBI cases. “The real problem is that the CBI has been relying on government law officers and standing counsels, whereas there is a need for retaining a regular team of lawyers who will progressively develop expertise in prosecuting corruption related cases.”

Urging for speedy trials Balakrishnan said over 9000 CBI cases are pending in various courts across the country. While welcoming recent initiatives by the centre to establish new CBI courts the CJI asked the CBI to make amends in the manner in which they present their case before courts.

“I think the CBI should think about reducing the number of witnesses for proving same argument. If evidence given by a witness is worth believing, even one is enough,” the CJI said.

He urged investigating agencies to focus on gathering indisputable scientific evidence in corruption cases. The methods currently being followed like “entrapment” and “wire tapping” have their grey areas. It is in this context, he said, that prosecutors need to be given functional independence so that they can rigorously examine the investigators efforts.