<%-- Page Title--%> Law Letter <%-- End Page Title--%>

February 1, 2004 

Don't blame the police always

This refers to the news item published in the Daily Star on 6 January titled 'Four year old accused of looting rice' and the editorial published subsequently on the same subject. Both in the news item and editorial it has been alleged that police recorded the case without investigation and thus falsely implicated a minor. It was portrayed as an example of shoddy police work. It condemns that the local police did not conduct any independent investigation prior to recording of the case. Police, for that matter, has been depicted as incompetent and inefficient. It says police could easily exclude the name of the accused after investigation. It was a deliberate mistake done by police to extort money from the persons concerned.

It has often been said that in independent Bangladesh the only sector that has improved considerably is the media sector. Press and press people deserve credit for that. Journalists often suffer physically as well as socially by the evil doers for publishing true reports. Against this backdrop of expectation it is unfortunate that the correspondents send reports on legal issues and concerns without having the knowledge of the laws of the land. It is more unfortunate that an esteemed daily like the 'Daily Star' comments in its editorial in the same tune.

The law of criminal procedure is in its codified form in our country since 1898. It does not give any discretion to the police whereby a case can be recorded according to its (police's) sweet will. As advised by the Daily Star there is no scope of prior investigation before registering a case. When a complainant comes with a complaint to the police station, the police officer is legally bound to write down the allegation as is presented by the person. There is no such provision that without registering it, police can set out to ascertain the truth of the complaint. It may be malice on the part of a complainant to accuse a 4-year-old for looting rice, but police can, on no pretext, refuse the recording of the case.

Police has no right to select the First Information Report. All subsequent steps taken by the police to discover whether there was any truth in such a report is really part of the investigation (subsequently). From the legal point of view it is impossible to investigate before a case is lodged. The attempt to discover whether there was any truth in the report is the investigation itself. But that all begins after the recording of the complaint. The recording of the information (may it be true or otherwise) is what sets the criminal law in motion.

A person who gives a false case is liable to be punished under relevant sections of law, but there is no scope of refusing to register the case on the plea that the complaint is untenable. Whether the complaint stands the test of investigation is a story to be written later. Police is bound by law to investigate a complaint against a person/persons, be it imaginary or incredible. If someone comes up with an allegation, police is under compulsion to record and act on it. I do not defend police for their misdeeds. The allegation of bribery might be true. Fighting that issue is a different part of the story.

Baku Choudhury, Uttara, Dhak

*****

Let the judiciary work freely

Most of us know that for a truly welfare state, the judicial system should work independently without the control of the government, although some government would like to keep the judiciary under its administrative control to maintain its own interest. Successive governments committed to allow the judicial system to work independently of the administrative control, but it was not never materialised. It is against the principal of Islam and other religions as well to influence the fairness of justice and freedom of the judiciary. My utmost request to the authority that the judicial system of the country be given complete freedom so that the judges can provide justice to the people.

Syeda Nazma Ahmed Kona
Mohammadpur, Dhaka.

*****

Thanks the Daily Star Law Desk for publishing a thoughtful writing of Barrister Tureen Afroz titled "Independence of Judiciary: What Next?" and a few weeks back, a detail interview of Dr. Kamal Hussain on the same issue. I read both of these with deep attention and thought how far we have to wait for separation of our Judiciary. Late Barrister Istiaq Ahmed did all preparatory work for separation during the last Caretaker Government. The PM committed that her government will separate the judiciary as early as possible. But the present Law Minister's is saying that separation of judiciary will take at least 6-7 years. I would like to ask the government why they need so much time, which could be completed within three months by the Caretaker Government? Does not it proved government's laxity to separate judiciary during their tenure which was one of the prime election pledges?

Md.Zillur Rahaman,
Gandaria, Dhaka.