Inordinate Delay To Complete Investigation May Be Taken As Presumptive Proof Of Prejudice, Particularly When Accused Is In Custody: SC [Read Order]

There is certainly a need for in-house mechanism to ensure that there is no undue delay in completing investigation, the bench said.The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, observed that inordinate delay in completing investigation may be taken as presumptive proof of prejudice particularly when accused is in custody so that prosecution does not become persecution.The bench of Justice AK Goel and. The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, observed that inordinate delay in completing investigation may be taken as presumptive proof of prejudice particularly when accused is in custody so that prosecution does not become persecution. There is, thus, clear need for timelines for completing investigation and for having in-house oversight mechanism wherein accountability for adhering to laid down timelines can be fixed at different levels in the hierarchy.” It observed that factors like nature of offence, number of accused and witnesses, the workload of the court and the investigating agency, systemic delays, may be taken into account for determining whether undue delay has occurred. Though it is neither advisable nor feasible to prescribe any mandatory outer time limit and the court may only examine effect of delay in every individual case on the anvil of Article 21 of the Constitution, there is certainly a need for in-house mechanism to ensure that there is no undue delay in completing investigation,” the court said.