This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High
Court of Madras dated 15th June, 2001 delivered in Criminal
Appeal No. 523 of 1997.
Brief facts of the case in nutshell are as follows:
Kalidasan, Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.4 received an
information that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the
accused) was transporting contraband articles and that the
accused could be caught with the contraband if he goes to the
Nandhi Departmental Stores. This information received by
P.W.4 was conveyed to his superior P.W.5, who was the
Inspector of Police, Narcotic Intelligence Bureau during the
relevant period. The said information given in writing is
Ex.P.6. On the basis of the said information, P.W.5 met P.W.6
and appraised him of the said fact. Thereafter, PWs 4, 5 and
6 went to the said departmental store and arrested the
accused. The accused was found in possession of a bag which
contained the narcotic substance.
The accused was informed of his right under section 50
of the Act. Thereafter, the bag was searched and the officers
found 5 Kgs. of opium in the said bag. After taking 10 grams
of opium for sample, the remaining opium was also taken in a
packet. The sample packet as well as the other packet was
sealed in the presence of the witnesses. The accused was
brought to the police station. P.W.6 registered a case in Crime
No. 64 of 1994 and took up investigation. Ex.P.7 is the copy
of the printed first information report. He questioned the
witnesses and recorded their statements. He sent Ex.P.8 (his
report) to the superior officer under section 57 of the Act. The
same was sent to the court with a requisition to forward them
for analysis. On receipt of the report from the chemical
analyst, the final report was filed against the accused.
The accused was convicted by the Special District and
Sessions Judge, Madurai and was directed to undergo 10
years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and,
in default, to further undergo 3 years simple imprisonment.
The accused preferred an appeal before the High Court.
It was submitted on behalf of the accused before the High
Court that the officer who had registered the crime in the case,
also investigated the said crime. It was also submitted that
the crime was registered by P.W.6 and that the case was also
investigated by him. According to the submission advanced
on behalf of the accused, the crime ought to have been
investigated by another independent officer and not by P.W.6.
The High Court found substance in this submission made on
behalf of the accused and acquitted the accused.
Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court, the
State, through Inspector of Police, NIB, Madurai, Tamil Nadu,
preferred a special leave petition under Article 136 of the
Constitution before this Court. This Court granted leave on
29.8.2002.
The short question which falls for consideration of this
Court is whether P.W.6 who registered the crime could have
investigated the case or an independent officer ought to have
investigated the case.
The learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted
that the controversy involved in this case is no longer res
integra. In Megna Singh v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC
709, this Court has taken a categorical view that the officer
who arrested the accused should not have proceeded with the
investigation of the case. The relevant paragraph reads as
under:
“4. …….. We have also noted another disturbing
feature in this case. P.W.3, Sri Chand, Head
Constable arrested the accused and on search being
conducted by him a pistol and the cartridges were
recovered from the accused. It was on his
complaint a formal first information report was
lodged and the case was initiated. He being
complainant should not have proceeded with the
investigation of the case. But it appears to us that
he was not only the complainant in the case but he
carried on with the investigation and examined
witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Such practice,
to say the least, should not be resorted to so that
there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and
impartial investigation.”
The ratio of Megna’s case has been followed by other
cases.
In another case in Balasundaran v. State 1999 (113)
ELT 785 (Mad), in para 16, the Madras High Court took the
same view. The relevant portion reads as under:
“16. Learned Counsel for the appellants also stated
that P.W. 5 being the Inspector of Police who was
present at the time of search and he was the
investigating officer and as such it is fatal to the
case of the prosecution. P.W. 5, according to the
prosecution, was present with PWs 3 and 4 at the
time of search. In fact, P.W. 5 alone took up
investigation in the case and he had examined the
witnesses. No doubt the successor to P.W. 5 alone
had filed the charge sheet. But there is no material
to show that he had examined any other witness. It
therefore follows that P.W. 5 was the person who
really investigated the case. P.W. 5 was the person
who had searched the appellants in question and he
being the investigation officer, certainly it is not
proper and correct. The investigation ought to have
been done by any other investigating agency. On
this score also, the investigation is bound to suffer
and as such the entire proceedings will be vitiated.”
In this view of the legal position, as crystallized in Megna
Singh’s case (supra), the High Court was justified in
acquitting the accused. We see no infirmity in the view which
has been taken by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
In our considered view, no interference is called for. The
appeal, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed.
(Dalveer Bhandari)
(Dr. Mukundakam Sharma) New Delhi; April 30, 2009.