Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court via its three – judge bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice R. Bhanumati and Justice Navin Sinha held a very important judgment that said, the informant and the investigator in a NDPS case must not be one and the same person. This was held in Mohan Lal vs State of Punjab after citing references to significant cases of the past.
There was a two bench judge in the Tamil Nadu vs. Rajangam, that held the investigating officer apprehending the accused could not have investigated the case. In Surender vs. State of Haryana, the bench distinguished the both. The court also took heed of two judgments, in Naushad vs. State of Kerala and in Kader vs State of Kerala. The division bench in the case of Kader had overruled the single bench Judgment in case of Naushad. It was held here that merely because the detecting officer is himself the investigating officer or any other officer of the same rank as the detecting officer is investigating the case, it will not vitiate the proceedings under the NDPS Act.
The Supreme Court in this case upheld the single bench view in Naushad and held, “ The view taken by the Kerala High Court in Kader (Supra) does to meet our approval…..An investigation is a systematic collection of facts for the purpose of describing what occurred and explaining why it occurred. The word systematic suggests that it is more than whimsical process. An investigator will collect the fact relating to the incident. The fact is information and is not synonymous to truth. Kader (Supra) is therefore overruled”. Laying it down with certainty, Justice Navin Sinha said, “If an informant police official in a criminal prosecution, especially when carrying a reverse burden of proof, makes the allegations, is himself asked to investigate, serious doubts will naturally arise with regard to his fairness and impartiality. It is not necessary that bias must actually be proved. It would be illogical to presume and contrary to normal human conduct, that he would himself at the end of the investigation submit a closure report to conclude false implication with all its attendant consequences for the complainant himself”
86540
103860
630
114
59824