Does an investigation have to be withdrawn before prosecution? Article 140 of my country’s Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that when the People’s Procuratorate reviews a case, it may return it to t

Does an investigation have to be withdrawn before prosecution? Article 140 of my country’s Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that when the People’s Procuratorate reviews a case, it may return it to the public security organ for supplementary investigation, or it may conduct its own investigation. If the People's Procuratorate still believes that the evidence is insufficient and does not meet the conditions for prosecution, it may decide not to prosecute. This means that cases transferred for prosecution by the public security organ or the procuratorate’s investigation department must be returned to the public security organ or the procuratorate’s investigation department for supplementary investigation before a decision is made not to prosecute. Only when the case is returned for supplementary investigation and the evidence is still considered insufficient and does not meet the conditions for prosecution, a decision not to prosecute can be made after discussion and decision by the Procuratorate Committee of the hospital. The author believes that before making a decision not to prosecute if there are doubts, it is not appropriate to set up a pre-procedure to return for supplementary investigation. The reasons are: First, it does not conform to modern litigation principles. The purpose of returning for supplementary investigation is to collect further incriminating evidence for suspected non-prosecution cases, to convict and prosecute criminal suspects transferred for prosecution as much as possible, and to avoid or mitigate the decision not to prosecute. It embodies the ideas of "suspecting a crime will lead to punishment" and "doubting a crime will lead to punishment". This is inconsistent with the principles of modern criminal procedure and is not conducive to protecting the legitimate rights and interests of criminal suspects. Second, it does not comply with the principle of statute of limitations. The principle of statute of limitations requires that the setting up of criminal proceedings should be as simple as possible. Reducing litigation procedures and improving litigation efficiency can not only reduce the consumption of judicial resources, but also enable criminal suspects and defendants to get rid of or reduce the burden of litigation as soon as possible. Before making a decision not to prosecute, there is no need to set up pre-procedures to return for supplementary investigation. The prosecutor in charge of the case shall make a decision on whether to return the case for supplementary investigation based on the actual circumstances of the case. Third, some cases do not need to be returned for supplementary investigation. First, when some cases are transferred for prosecution, it can be confirmed that the evidence is insufficient and there is obviously no new evidence for verification. Especially when the evidence has been lost, the witness is dead or the whereabouts are unknown, it will be useless to return the case for supplementary investigation. In judicial practice, some cases returned for supplementary investigation do not add any new evidence, so it is futile to return this case for supplementary investigation. Second, the purpose of returning for supplementary investigation can be achieved through self-supplementary investigation. The procuratorial organ can conduct supplementary investigation on its own to achieve the effect of returning for supplementary investigation; and the procuratorial organ's own supplementary investigation is more targeted and may achieve better results than returning for supplementary investigation, which is conducive to making an accurate decision not to prosecute if there is doubt. Fourth, there must be sufficient supervision and control procedures to ensure the quality of cases where no prosecution is suspected. Questionable cases of non-prosecution should be returned for supplementary investigation before making a decision. Its purpose is to ensure the quality of non-prosecution cases in doubt and to prevent rash decisions that indulge real criminals. However, the Criminal Procedure Law has set up relatively complete procedures to ensure the quality of cases in which cases are not prosecuted if there is doubt. First, the decision not to prosecute when there is doubt must be made through collective discussion and decision by the Procuratorial Committee, the highest decision-making body within the procuratorate; second, the public security organs must also accept the constraints of the public security organs at the same level on cases transferred for prosecution by the public security organs. If the public security organ believes that the procuratorial organ's decision not to prosecute is erroneous, it may request reconsideration or review. Third, there is a remedy procedure for prosecution. After making a decision not to prosecute if there are doubts, if the procuratorial organ finds that there is new evidence in the case and meets the conditions for prosecution, it can also prosecute the person who does not prosecute if there are doubts, which can avoid ineffective strikes. To sum up, the author believes that if there is insufficient evidence and it cannot be determined that the suspect has committed a crime and needs to be held criminally responsible, and the case cannot be verified during the review and prosecution stage, there is no need to return it for supplementary investigation before making a decision not to prosecute. (Author's unit: Chongqing Dazu County Procuratorate)