Listen to this articleMukesh
Singh v State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi)
Special Leave Petition(Criminal) Diary
No.39528/2018 decided on August 31, 2020.
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/39528/39528_2018_33_1502_23731_Judgement_31-Aug-2020.pdf
BENCH- Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet
Saran, MR Shah,Ravindra Bhat, JJ.
FACTS
The
present appeal arises out of SLP filed by accused who challenged the Supreme
Court decision in the case of Mohan Lal v State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC
627 (hereinafter
referred as ‘Mohan Lal Case’). In Mohan Lal case, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that in case the investigation is conducted by the
police officer who himself is the complainant, the trial is vitiated and the
accused is entitled to acquittal. The same was challenged in case of Mukesh
Singh v State and two judge’s bench of Supreme Court referred the matter to
larger bench.
ISSUE
When an investigation is conducted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act (hereinafter referred as ‘NDPS Act’) will it get
vitiated if the informant and investigating officer are same?
ARGUMENT ADVANCED
|
Appellant |
Respondent |
|
The Counsel for appellant argued that free
and fair trial is part of Article 21 of Constitution of India. The same
is in consonance with the age-old principles of law that “Nemo debetessejudex
in causa proporiasua |
The Respondent argued
that Cr.P.C. itself has provisions for vitiation and non-vitiation of trial and
it does not have any such provisions for investigating officer therefore
proceeding should not be vitiated. |
|
It was argued that
officer or the raiding party which effects recovery are witnesses to the said
fact and therefore investigation of the said aspect has to be carried out by
an independent agency. |
It was argued that irregularity
in investigation would not lead to acquittal unless failure of justice is
shown. Illustration (e) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act which permits
the Court to raise a presumption that official acts have been regularly
performed was relied upon. |
HELD
The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court overruling the
three judges bench decision in case of Mohan Lal Case and held that if the
informant himself is the investigator, then by that itself cannot be said that
the investigation is vitiated on the ground of bias or the like factor. The
question of bias or prejudice would depend upon the facts and circumstances of
each case. Therefore, merely because the informant is the investigator, by that
itself the investigation would not suffer the vice of unfairness or bias and
therefore on the sole ground that informant is the investigator, the accused is
not entitled to acquittal.
Furthermore, the Court said that only in a case where the accused is able
to establish and prove the bias and/or unfair investigation by the
informant-cum-investigator then he will be entitled to acquittal and not
otherwise.