Judgment Intelligence
Other- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 31 August 2020
- Bench
- Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat (Constitution Bench)
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 35, 42, 52, 53, 54, 58, 68; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 154, 156, 157, 465; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 114, illustration (e); Constitution of India — Article 21
The reference was answered accordingly, and the petitions were directed to be placed before the appropriate Court for decision on merits in light of the answer (paras 12-14).
Key holdings
- Merely because the informant is the investigator, the investigation does not suffer from unfairness or bias, and the accused is not entitled to acquittal on that sole ground (para 12).
- Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, (2018) 17 SCC 627, and any decision holding that the informant cannot be the investigator are not good law and are overruled (para 12).
- Bhagwan Singh, Megha Singh and Rajangam are confined to their own facts and lay down no general rule (paras 8, 12).
- Neither the CrPC nor the NDPS Act bars the informant from investigating; Section 53 of the NDPS Act permits it (paras 9.1, 9.5, 11).
- Bias or prejudice has to be established, not inferred; if proved where the case rests only on the informant-investigator, it can be given due weightage (para 11).
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627
Held that where the investigation is conducted by the police officer who is himself the complainant, the trial is vitiated and the accused is entitled to acquittal; overruled as not good law.
- Varinder Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 3 SCC 321
A three-Judge Bench held that Mohan Lal applies prospectively, pending prosecutions, trials and appeals being governed by their individual facts; the Constitution Bench still decided the question on its merits.
- Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1976) 1 SCC 15
The acquittal, where the Head Constable who was offered the bribe lodged the FIR and investigated, rested on its own facts and lays down no general rule that the informant can never investigate.
View all precedents (18)
- Megha Singh v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 709
The observation that the complainant Head Constable should not have investigated was made on the peculiar facts after the evidence was doubted; confined to its own facts.
- State by Inspector of Police, NIB, Tamil Nadu v. Rajangam (2010) 15 SCC 369
The acquittal followed Megha Singh without further discussion; confined to its own facts.
- State v. V. Jayapaul (2004) 5 SCC 223
Investigation by the police officer who lodged the FIR is not barred; it can be assailed only for bias or real likelihood of bias, which depends on the facts of each case.
- S. Jeevanantham v. State (2004) 5 SCC 230
In an NDPS case, a conviction was not set aside although the complainant officer investigated, as no prejudice or bias was shown.
- Bhaskar Ramappa Madar v. State of Karnataka (2009) 11 SCC 690
There is no legal bar against investigation by the complainant; the matter is decided case by case without universal generalisation.
- State of U.P. v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi AIR 1964 SC 221
Considered in V. Jayapaul on the scheme of Sections 154, 156 and 157 CrPC.
- State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172
Noted in Mohan Lal as one of the decisions on the other side of the conflict.
- Surender v. State of Haryana (2016) 4 SCC 617
Cited among decisions holding that investigation by the complainant does not vitiate the investigation.
- Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1
Section 154 leaves the police no discretion to hold a preliminary enquiry; the information must be recorded and then investigated.
- Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (2003) 5 SCC 291
Testimony of police personnel is treated like that of any other witness and needs no independent corroboration as a rule of law.
- Devender Pal Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2002) 5 SCC 234
The presumption that a person acts honestly applies to a police officer too; he is not to be distrusted without good grounds.
- State of Rajasthan v. Ram Chandra (2005) 5 SCC 151
The question of prejudice or bias has to be established and not inferred.
- Union of India v. Vipan Kumar Jain (2005) 9 SCC 579
The question of bias has to be decided on the facts of each case.
- Hardip Singh v. State of Punjab (2008) 8 SCC 557
Cited by the Additional Solicitor General as approving V. Jayapaul where the investigating officer had seized the opium.
- State of Punjab v. Noor Aga (2008) 16 SCC 417
Cited by the Additional Solicitor General: presumptions against the accused operate only after the foundational facts are established.
