9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 distu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igated 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. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
