431 % increase respectively in the number of murders and rapes in the country, on the other hand, we have to bear with steep decline in the rate of convictions. In 1961, 20% of the persons arrested, were convicted. The rate has fallen to 6.4% in 1994. Several legislative, executive and judicial measures have been experimented with to stem the rot. The legislature has endeavoured to tighten the screws on the food adulterators, corrupt public servants, terrorists etc., by prescribing minimum sentence, stringent bails and presumption of offences on proof of certain facts etc. None of these have helped. In fact, the rate of convictions is still lower in case of offences under the Special Acts. The executive has tried its best to avail of the special legislative provisions like in TADA, but experience has shown that stricter penal laws created a hue and cry against massive misuse of the provisions at the hands of unscrupulous politicians and officials, in whom the responsibility for enforcement of the special laws has necessarily to be vested.
In the matter of innovation in dealing with the critical situation prevailing in the field of criminal law, the judiciary has not lagged behind. Of late, it has taken to direct monitoring of investigation, because even orders directing transfer of investigation from one agency to another, failed to inspire confidence amongst the public. Today there are hundreds of petitions pending in the Supreme Court, and in various High Courts in the country, where the Judges are undertaking the onerous task of scanning through police diaries, scrutinising the statements made by the accused in custody and guiding the direction which the investigation must pursue. In this article it is my endeavour to examine whether the new-found activist role adopted by the Supreme Court and the High Courts of venturing into the field of investigation, is procedurally appropriate, constitutionally permissible, judicially desirable and socially productive or not.
