Reading Four Months of Enforcement Figures
At the monthly review of a district enforcement unit, the following figures are placed before you (seizure values in Rs lakh):
| Month | Cases registered | Persons arrested | Value of seizures | Convictions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| January | 120 | 168 | 48 | 12 |
| February | 150 | 195 | 72 | 18 |
| March | 90 | 126 | 30 | 15 |
| April | 180 | 216 | 90 | 9 |
Of April's 180 cases, 150 have so far ended in a charge-sheet or a final report. The Superintendent says April 'shows the unit working twice as hard for half the result' and wants a note before the range review. You are asked to look at ratios rather than totals, to say which month genuinely departs from the pattern, and to propose one verification step before any adverse remark goes on file against the unit.
1. Compute arrests per case, value per case and conviction rate for each month. Which month departs from the pattern, and in what respect exactly?
Read the worked answer
| Month | Arrests/case | Value per case (Rs) | Conviction rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan | 1.40 | 40,000 | 10.0% |
| Feb | 1.30 | 48,000 | 12.0% |
| Mar | 1.40 | 33,333 | 16.7% |
| Apr | 1.20 | 50,000 | 5.0% |
April is not a month of half-hearted work. It has the highest case count, the highest total value, and the highest value per case - Rs 50,000 against Rs 33,333 in March, a rise of 50%. Arrests per case are the lowest at 1.20, which usually means more cases booked against fewer, bigger operators rather than slack investigation.
The genuine departure is the conviction rate: 5.0% against 16.7% in March, a fall of about seventy per cent. That is the figure the note should isolate, and it is a court-outcome figure, not a measure of how hard the unit worked.
2. If April had converted cases at March's rate, how many convictions would be expected? What does the gap actually measure, and what is the first thing you would check?
Read the worked answer
Expected at March's rate: 180 × 15/90 = 30 convictions. Actual: 9. The gap is 21.
The gap does not measure police effort, because conviction is the end of a chain the unit does not control: charge-sheet, cognizance, trial, witnesses, court time. A month with many freshly registered cases will always look poor on convictions, because those cases have not reached judgment yet.
First check: pendency, not performance. 150 of April's 180 cases have a charge-sheet or final report, so about 30 are still under investigation; of the 150 disposed, ask how many trials have actually concluded and how many are pending for want of witnesses or counsel. If most of April's trials are still running, the 5% figure is an artefact of timing and must not go on file as an adverse remark.
3. Test the Superintendent's phrase 'twice as hard for half the result' against the table, and state what the note should say instead.
Read the worked answer
'Twice as hard' - partly true, badly put. Cases rose from 90 in March to 180 in April, exactly double, and arrests from 126 to 216, a rise of about 71%. But seizure value rose from Rs 30 lakh to Rs 90 lakh, which is three times, not twice, and value per case rose by half.
'Half the result' - not supported. Convictions fell from 15 to 9, a fall of 40%, not 50%, and they fell while case registrations doubled, which is what one expects when new cases have not yet been tried.
What the note should say: 'April records the highest registration, the highest seizure value and the highest value per case of the four months, alongside the lowest conviction rate; the fall in convictions is consistent with the pendency of newly registered cases and should be read after the disposal and trial pendency figures are placed on record.' That is accurate, defensible in a range review, and does not blame the unit for the court's calendar.