The Punjab Public Prosecution Department, like Punjab
Government’s every administrative department, has been assigned with certain
functions which are to be performed by officers/officials of this department at
various administrative levels. In order to induct transparency, efficiency,
improved service delivery and effective career planning and appropriate decision making in the administrative
set up, the government needs to measure the performance delivered by its
officers/officials in respect of the functions assigned to them by the
government so that their performance may be better governed and improved
accordingly where required. In order to measure performance, the performance
parameters have to be devised and quantified.
Furthermore, if functions assigned to the concerned officers/officials - whose performance is to be measured- are almost of similar nature, as is in the case of prosecutors, the performance parameters to be measured have to be standardized also so that a relevant comparative performance analysis may be conducted to take corrective measures for improving service delivery and for advancement of service career of the concerned officers/officials.
Furthermore, if functions assigned to the concerned officers/officials - whose performance is to be measured- are almost of similar nature, as is in the case of prosecutors, the performance parameters to be measured have to be standardized also so that a relevant comparative performance analysis may be conducted to take corrective measures for improving service delivery and for advancement of service career of the concerned officers/officials.
Keeping in view the importance of standardization and
quantification of performance parameters, as mentioned above, Directorate of Inspection, Public
Prosecution Department, has worked out standardized/common and quantifiable Key
Performance Indicators to assess performance of all prosecutors working with
lower judiciary and Special Courts. These KPIs do not apply to the prosecutors working
with Lahore High Court. The detail of KPIs worked out is given below:
KPIs for Public Prosecution
Department
1. Pendency of Reports u/s 173
Name of Prosecutor
Name of District/Court
|
Period Inspected
|
Total NO. of Reports Sent to Court
|
NO. of Reports
Received
|
% of Reports Sent to Court
|
2. Scrutiny of Reports
Name of Prosecutor
Name of District/Court
|
Period Inspected
|
Total No. of
Reports Received
|
No. of Reports
Scrutinized
|
% of Reports Scrutinized
|
3. Reports U/S 9(7)
Name of Prosecutor
Name of District/Court
|
Period Inspected
|
NO. of Reports u/s 9(7)
|
Total Reports Sent to Court
|
% of Reports u/s 9(7)
|
4. BAILS
Name of Prosecutor
Name of District/Court
|
Period Inspected
|
Accepted
|
Rejected
|
% of Rejected
|
||||
5. Witness Recording
Name of Prosecutor
Name of District/Court
|
Period Inspected
|
Total NO. of
Witnesses Attending Court
|
NO. of
Witnesses Recorded
|
% of Witnesses Recorded
|
6. Cancellation of Bails in Ordinary
Crimes
Name of Prosecutor
Name of District/Court
|
Period Inspected
|
Total NO. of
Bails Granted on Merit
|
No. of
Cancellations Moved
|
% of Cancellations Moved
|
7. Cancellation of Bails in Heinous
Crimes
Name of Prosecutor
Name of District/Court
|
Period Inspected
|
Total NO. of
Bails Granted on Merit
|
No. of
Cancellations Moved
|
% of Cancellations Moved
|
8. Convictions
Name of Prosecutor
Name of District/Court
|
Period Inspected
|
No. of Cases
Decided
|
No. of
Convictions
|
% of convictions
|
9. Appeals/Revisions in Acquittals/Convictions with Less Punishment in Ordinary
Crimes
Name of Prosecutor
Name of District/Court
|
Period Inspected
|
Total NO. of
Cases Decided on Merit
|
No. of Appeals/revisions
Filed/under Process to be filed
|
% of Appeals Filed
|
10.
Appeals/Revisions
in Acquittals/Convictions with Less Punishment in Heinous Crimes
Name of Prosecutor
Name of District/Court
|
Period Inspected
|
Total NO. of
Cases Decided on Merit
|
No. of Appeals/revisions
Filed/under Process to be filed
|
% of Appeals/revisions Filed
|
11.
Resiling
of Witnesses
Name of Prosecutor
Name of District/Court
|
Period Inspected
|
Total NO. of
Cases Decided on Merit/(u.s. 265 K; 249-A
|
Total No. Of
Cases of Resiling Witnesses
|
No. of Cases
in Which Actions Taken Against Resiling Witnesses
|
% of Cases in Which Actions Taken Against Resiling
Witnesses
|
12.
Certified
Copies of Judgements
Name of Prosecutor
Name of District/Court
|
Period Inspected
|
Total NO. of
Cases Decided
|
Total No. of
Certified Copies of Judgment Procured
|
% of Cases in Which Certified
Copies of Judgment Procured
|
13.
Record
Keeping
Name of Prosecutor
Name of District/Court
|
Period Inspected
|
NO. of
Violations/Compliances as per Inspection Pro-forma
|
% of
Violations/Compliances as per Inspection Pro-forma
|
14.
Implementation
of Instructions
Name of Prosecutor
Name of District/Court
|
Period Inspected
|
NO. of
Instructions Issued
|
% of
Violations/Compliances
|
15.
Improvement/Decline
in Performance as Compared to Previous Inspection
Name of Prosecutor
Name of District/Court
|
Period Inspected
|
NO. of KPIs of
which Improvement Shown
|
% of
Improvement per KPI
|
Average Improvement in %
|
