Hon’ble Shri K.G. Balakrishnan, Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Shri Prithviraj Chavan, MOS(PP), Shri Shantanu Consul, Secretary (Personnel), Respected Invitees, distinguished guests, members of the media, Director, CBI and other colleagues from CBI and NICFS, ladies and gentlemen.

          The National Institute of Criminology & Forensic Science has been providing a common forum to officials from different segments of the Criminal Justice System to jointly discuss common concerns. To this end, the NICFS has organized over 1400 joint programmes for police officers, prosecutors, judges and other stakeholders. In these forum issues have been deliberated, rationalized and resolved.

          Widespread poverty continues to be a major challenge despite the economic strides we have made since 1951. According to World Bank studies corruption adversely affects public sector productivity and distributive justice. Corruption also increases income inequality, weakens governance and reduces citizens trust in effectiveness of their Government.

          Time and again our Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh has been emphasizing on the need to control corruption. In his address on diamond jubilee of Indian Independence he said,

          "For all the benefits of development to reach the poor it is essential that the delivery systems of the Government, at all levels, are more efficient and purged of corruption. The cancer of corruption must be extinguished if democracy and development have to have a real meaning for our people."

          He reiterated this in his Independence Day address of 2009.

          "However, good our programmes and schemes might be their benefits will not reach the public unless government machinery is not free of corruption."

          As far as substantive laws are concerned, the Prevention of Corruption Act was amended in 1988 to incorporate offences relating to the acceptance of illegal gratification by public servants. The offences that had been previously enumerated in the erstwhile Sections 161 to 165 of the Indian Penal Code, were included in the Prevention of Corruption Act and higher penalties were prescribed. In addition to illegal gratification which could be in the nature of monetary benefits as well as those in kind, the Act also defined the offences of 'criminal misconduct' and the 'possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income'. Another amendment expanded the definition of 'criminal misconduct' to include acts which result in a loss to the exchequer and are violative of public interest, irrespective of whether the concerned public servant makes a monetary gain for himself. While the substantive definition of offences appears to be quite adequate, there have been persistent demands for enhancing the penalties and punishments under the Act.

          Widespread corruption has also dented country's image in the international community. India has been presented in some international studies as among the most corrupt nations. Such perceptions also discourage foreign investments in India. Our Criminal Justice System is perceived to be ineffective and slow in punishing the corrupt. The result is growing public cynicism and distrust in governance. This is a threat to democracy.

          In combating corruption investigation is extremely laborious, prosecution daunting and trial monotonous. The charged public official, defended by a battery of formidable lawyers, often succeeds in escaping through gaps left by lack of inter agency coordination between investigators, prosecutors and judges. This is confounded by lack of statutory time frames for both investigation and trial. If the corrupt official is not punished before the initial expose fades out of public memory, people lose trust. Also deterrence effect is lost.

          In fair trial dispassion and synergy are not mutually exclusive. Investigators, prosecutors and judges need to sit together and identify the roadblocks to faster investigation and trial which is also a constitutional right of the accused. In joint deliberations they can explore and evolve parameters for mutually agreeable time frames for investigation and trial to restore common man's trust in the system.

          Recognizing this possibility, the NICFS in association with Central Bureau of Investigation, is organizing this two day Seminar. The Seminar will discuss various aspects in 4 technical sessions each devoted to legislative gaps and constraints effective prosecution, uninterrupted trial and appreciation of electronic evidence. It is expected that these deliberations will create better synergy amongst investigators, prosecutors and judges in their march together for speedy justice.

Thank You