According to Tomlin's Law dictionary, “commitment means sending of a person to prison by warrant or order, who hath been guilty of any crime.” Therefore, committal proceeding concerns to the special type of proceeding which alludes to the preliminary hearing in the court of Magistrate and by this way of preliminary hearing the concerned Magistrate has to determine the gravity of a case that whether the case is triable before a higher court. This proceeding can be done through either oral evidence or written statement and evidence.
Under the criminal justice system in the UK, Committal proceeding is a very salient mechanism in case of preliminary hearing as well as to investigate and to determine whether criminal charges should be brought. In the case of Com. v Baker 133 Mass. 399,400 it was held that “Committed is to be taken as having a technical meaning, and necessarily implies a warrant or order by a Court or Magistrate directing a Ministerial Officer to take a person to prison.”
The utmost advantage of this proceeding is that it gives an accused a vast opportunity to challenge the case against him before it reaches the higher court. This procedure facilitates the inquiry of the cases by taking evidence. So we can say that the committal proceeding has two main aspects: to decide that whether a person should be charged because of committing any crime or not and to investigate any criminal activity by considering the evidence.
Very interestingly, in the Indian sub continent, the proposition of committal proceeding was spelled out in chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. But due to some reasons, section 2 and schedule of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1978 has omitted this chapter from CrPC in 1978. Dr. M. Zahir discussed about the history of Law Reform Ordinance and the concerned omission by the Ordinance in his book “Delay in Courts and Court Management” (Publication of BILIA, 1988). He mentioned some reasons behind the omission:
* To examine the causes of delay in the disposal of cases by the courts and to suggest how justice might better and more speedily be done.
* To eliminate delay in the disposal of cases.
* To remove duplication and over elaboration in court proceeding without affecting the quality of justice.
* To secure early determination of disputes in whole or in part.
* To ensure a more responsive justice which is effective for prosecutors, victims and witnesses.
* To mitigate the expense of committal proceeding.
* To minimize the uncertainties associated with processing cases.
* To assure equal access to the adjudicative process for all litigants.
* To send the case straight to the higher court when it is clear that the concerned issue is serious enough so that there will be no need to wait for a committal hearing which may slow the justice system down.
Unfortunately it is mentioned nowhere that what will be the legal consequences and alternative solutions in this regard because whenever a certain provision is abolished there must be an alternative subpoena to pervade the legal inadequacy. Through this omission the issues of committing the trial by inquiry and taking of evidence are excluded thereafter. As no alternative panacea has been embellished so different controversial incidents of arrest and detention are happened eventually.
The main duty of our judiciary is to safeguard the basic human rights of the citizens, which are guaranteed by our Constitution. So, the judiciary as well as the law making authorities has to ensure accountability in the concerned sector of criminal justice system. Proper guidelines and assessment, modern methods of investigation and adequate training to the investigating officers must be provided to uphold the significance of the criminal justice system so that no controversy could arise in the minds of the citizens.
Plz visit the following link to read more
http://www.thedailystar.net/law-and-our-rights/provisions-of-committal-proceeding-31108
