2009 (4) TMI 947 - SC - Indian Laws

Possession of bag, contained narcotic substance - On the basis of Information given in writing , P.W.5 met P.W.6 and appraised him - Thereafter, PWs 4, 5 and 6 went to the departmental store and arrested the accused - officers found 5 Kgs of opium - P.W.6 registered a case - accused was convicted - 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.- HC found substance in this submission and acquitted the accused - Aggrieved by the judgment of the HC, the State, through Inspector of Police, referred a special leave petition under Article 136 - Whether P.W.6 who registered the crime could have investigated the case or an independent officer ought to have investigated the case - HELD THAT - In Megna Singh v. State of Haryana 1995 (2) TMI 445 - SUPREME COURT , 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 ratio of Megna's case has been followed by other cases. In another case in Balasundaran v. State 1999 1999 (7) TMI 672 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , the High Court took the same view. '' 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, the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused. The appeal, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Whether the investigating officer who registered the crime can also investigate the case or if an independent officer should handle the investigation.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Madras where the accused was acquitted based on the argument that the investigating officer, who registered the crime, also conducted the investigation. The Supreme Court considered the submission made on behalf of the accused that an independent officer should have investigated the case. The accused was found in possession of a bag containing a narcotic substance, leading to his arrest and subsequent conviction by the Special District and Sessions Judge. The High Court acquitted the accused based on the argument that the investigating officer should not have been the same as the one who registered the crime.

The Supreme Court referred to the case of Megna Singh v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 709, where it was held that the officer who arrested the accused should not proceed with the investigation to ensure a fair and impartial process. The Court noted that this principle had been followed in subsequent cases as well. The Court cited the case of Balasundaran v. State 1999 (113) ELT 785 (Mad) where the Madras High Court also emphasized the importance of an independent investigating officer separate from the one who conducted the search and arrest. The Court agreed with the legal position established in Megna Singh's case and upheld the High Court's decision to acquit the accused.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no interference was warranted as the High Court's decision to acquit the accused based on the principle of having an independent investigating officer was justified. The Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused.