The penal code inherited from the British colonial days is impeccable and comprehensive. It is still in use in the three countries that constituted colonial India. These countries, particularly Bangladesh and India, are also following the same criminal procedure code. Though meticulously drawn up, some of the provisions in Cr. P.C appear to have outlived their justification and have been subjected to criticism by civil society on this ground. It has been alleged repeatedly that provisions like Section 54, 167 etc. give scope for abuse and violate human rights. Compared to these controversial sections much less attention has been given to criminal procedure for trial of accused. It is largely due to elaborate and lengthy procedure that trials take such a long time. It involves great expenses for both the government and the defendant-accused and the latter often have to remain incarcerated as under trial prisoner for long. More importantly, such a lengthy procedure have increased the volume of pending cases in trial courts which contributes greatly to the delay in disposal of cases. Since all cases are treated equally, even those involving most heinous crimes have to wait for their turn for hearing by courts. Shortage of trying judicial officers and staff aggravate the situation. This is exacerbated by delay in investigation by police and non-appearance of witnesses. There being no separate cadre for investigation of crimes in the police department, the process often suffers due to intermittent action and lack of seriousness. It is not unusual for investigation officer to be burdened with other responsibilities and sent away on transfer, which affect concentration on and continuation in investigation.

The above malaise has been known for a long time. The problems and issues involved have been discussed for umpteenth time by experts and concerned citizens as well as by government representatives. Though these deliberations did not produce immediate results, they can be said to have prepared the ground for changes in status quo. A Law Commission has been formed to look into the laws and procedures and suggest amendments or repeal of outdated or undesirable aspects of the criminal trial procedure, among other aspects of the legal system. The recommendations of the Commission may improve the system significantly but its progress of work appears to be slow. Perhaps the Commission lacks the facilities and resources for expeditious completion of their task. Whatever may be the reasons, more attention needs to be given to the work of the Commission and for the early completion of its task.

Recently, judgements have been given in about five sensational cases of murder and rape. The judgements have been considered to be appropriate and adequate. They meet the ends of punishment of the guilty and deterrence against potential crimes of the same nature. The deterrence may not be full proof but the punishment is exemplary. What is more notable is the time taken for the judgement delivered. The trials in these cases were completed in record time which brought great satisfaction to the families of the victims as well as to the civil society which is worried about delays in bringing criminals in such vile crimes promptly to justice. It cannot be denied that prolonged trial and pending justice have caused frustration and bred cynicism about the criminal justice system as a whole. In addition to the usual lackadaisical progress in the trial process due to procedural reasons, interference by powerful quarters is also suspected to cause delay or for dragging on in certain cases. The completion of trial and judgement in the Mondol, Bushra, Sony and twin murder cases have restored faith in the judicial system in a significant way. It has been proved that when the government is serious and committed to bring criminals to justice the system can be made to deliver.

The judgements in the above sensational cases could be delivered in record time because the government in the Home Ministry went out of the beaten track and took a bold and innovative step. It set up a Monitoring Cell to ensure the expeditious disposal in cases of heinous crimes. The cell collected lists of these cases from the districts and prepared a priority list of its own requiring special attention and treatment. So far 198 such cases have been included in the list. The murder of Bushra ranked second in the list under review of the Home Ministry. The judge in this case completed the hearing on 17th June, with 17 of the 34 witnesses examined. The verdict was delivered after only 49 workdays of the trial that began on August 4 last year. In less than a year the accused have been brought to justice that normally would have taken years for dispensation. One of the accused who has been sentenced to death is reported to belong to one major political party. This has a significance, which is referred to in the next paragraph.

In the Soni murder case three persons were sentenced to death and five to life imprisonment. The trial started in January this year after charge-sheet was submitted in January. The court framed charges against the main accused on 26th January and began trial from 30th January 2003. It examined a total of 23 prosecution witnesses. According to newspaper reports Sony, a second year student of BUET, was killed in a crossfire between two factions of a student organisation allied to another major political party. Apart from the speedy disposal of the two cases in record time, the impartiality of the courts over political affiliation of the accused is significant. Taking these two cases together it can be said that justice has been done in a free, fair and impartial way. This commendable standard has to be maintained in all cases if the confidence of the public is to be sustained.

The expeditious disposal of cases and delivery of judgements in a number of sensational cases has been possible because of the setting up of the special tribunals. So far nine(9) such Tribunals are working in different parts of the country. These exclusively deal with the cases that are forwarded to them by the Home Ministry from the list of cases compiled by it. The Ministry consults the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs before forwarding the cases to the Tribunals -- a procedure that gives scope for second review. To judge by the achievements of the objective, i.e. speedy trial of cases involving heinous crimes, the initiative taken by the government has been a great success. This makes out a case for more tribunals for speedy trials of serious cases throughout the country. To ensure greater confidence about impartiality, the list of cases to be tried by the tribunals may be finalised by a judicial body comprising retired judges. The initial selection may be done by the Ministry of Home Affairs in consultation with the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs.

The present system with the tribunals has proved effective. It only behoves the government to improve and expand its scope. If along with the provision of the special tribunals the existing criminal procedure is simplified and abridged, further fillip will be given to the acceleration of criminal trials. In fact, both should be emphasised and exist side by side. Given the chronic criticism about some aspects of Cr. P.C., its revision and amendment do not brook further delay.

Hasnat Abdul Hye is a former secretary, novelist and economist.