<p>Speaking to reporters after holding a review meeting of implementation of the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 and the Prevention of Atrocities Act (PoA) 1989 in the State, Wasnik said the conviction rate of cases in the State for the year 2009 stood at 2.3 per cent as against national average of 30 per cent.<br /><br />“Karnataka is one of those states where the conviction rate is the lowest. In this direction, the State government has been requested to ensure that the district vigilance and monitoring committee meet regularly. <br /><br />The State has also been directed to review all cases where there has been an acquittal to find out if there is any merit to file an appeal,” the union minister said.<br /><br />As per rule 17 of PoA Rules, 1995, a meeting of district level vigilance and monitoring committee is required to be held once in three months. As such during 2010, 120 meetings should have been held, whereas only 44 meetings were held in the year. The minister said the large number of pendency of cases in the State (77 per cent in 2009) was also one of the prime reasons for the low conviction rate.<br /><br />Wasnik also pointed out that there were discrepancies in the cases recorded under the PoA Act by the State Crime Records Bureau (SCRB) as compared to those recorded by National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). He said while the NCRB had recorded 2,436 cases against the police under PoA Act in 2009, the SCRB data showed that only 1,244 cases were registered in the same year.<br /><br />With regard to the pendency of cases in court, the NCRB data showed that 5,871 cases were pending in various courts, the SCRB data put the figure at 3,226. “We have asked the State government to look into the matter and reconcile the data,” Wasnik said.<br /><br />The Union minister had a word of appreciation for the State government’s initiative of setting up seven new special courts to try atrocities cases. <br /><br />State Social Welfare Minister A Narayanaswamy and top officials of the social welfare department were present at the review meeting.</p>
<p>Speaking to reporters after holding a review meeting of implementation of the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 and the Prevention of Atrocities Act (PoA) 1989 in the State, Wasnik said the conviction rate of cases in the State for the year 2009 stood at 2.3 per cent as against national average of 30 per cent.<br /><br />“Karnataka is one of those states where the conviction rate is the lowest. In this direction, the State government has been requested to ensure that the district vigilance and monitoring committee meet regularly. <br /><br />The State has also been directed to review all cases where there has been an acquittal to find out if there is any merit to file an appeal,” the union minister said.<br /><br />As per rule 17 of PoA Rules, 1995, a meeting of district level vigilance and monitoring committee is required to be held once in three months. As such during 2010, 120 meetings should have been held, whereas only 44 meetings were held in the year. The minister said the large number of pendency of cases in the State (77 per cent in 2009) was also one of the prime reasons for the low conviction rate.<br /><br />Wasnik also pointed out that there were discrepancies in the cases recorded under the PoA Act by the State Crime Records Bureau (SCRB) as compared to those recorded by National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). He said while the NCRB had recorded 2,436 cases against the police under PoA Act in 2009, the SCRB data showed that only 1,244 cases were registered in the same year.<br /><br />With regard to the pendency of cases in court, the NCRB data showed that 5,871 cases were pending in various courts, the SCRB data put the figure at 3,226. “We have asked the State government to look into the matter and reconcile the data,” Wasnik said.<br /><br />The Union minister had a word of appreciation for the State government’s initiative of setting up seven new special courts to try atrocities cases. <br /><br />State Social Welfare Minister A Narayanaswamy and top officials of the social welfare department were present at the review meeting.</p>
