Judgment Intelligence
Petition DismissedSurender @ Kala v. State of Haryana
Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2016 (arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 2082 of 2015); reported as (2016) 4 SCC 617
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 19 January 2016
- Bench
- Justices V. Gopala Gowda and Uday Umesh Lalit
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 18, 50; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 313
Final Outcome
Leave was granted and the appeal was dismissed; the Court found no reason to differ from the High Court (paras 1, 12).
Key holdings
- Rajangam affirmed an acquittal relying on Megha Singh, where the complainant head constable investigated, no independent witness was examined and police depositions were discrepant (para 10).
- In Megha Singh the search was not made before a Gazetted Officer; here it was conducted in the presence of and under the instructions of the DSP (para 11).
- Where the evidence shows the complainant was not alone in the investigation, the Megha Singh-Rajangam principle does not apply (para 11).
- That the plea was never raised below and found no mention in the High Court judgment was noted in rejecting it (para 11).
Brief Facts
A sub-inspector on patrol received secret information that the appellant was selling opium; it was reduced to writing and sent to the police station (para 3). Served with a Section 50 notice, the appellant opted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer, and a DSP was called to the spot (paras 3-4). On his instructions, opium weighing 1 kg 50 gms was recovered from a polythene bag tied around the appellant's stomach (para 4). The Special Judge convicted him under Section 18 and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000; the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed his appeal (paras 7-8).
Court's Findings
Relying on Rajangam, the appellant contended that the investigation was improper because the sub-inspector who was the complainant also investigated (para 9). The Court explained that in Rajangam it had affirmed an acquittal by relying on Megha Singh, a TADA and Arms Act case in which no independent witness was examined, two police witnesses' depositions were discrepant, and the head constable who recovered the pistol and lodged the complaint carried on with the investigation (para 10). Megha Singh had said that a complainant "should not have proceeded with the investigation of the case" (para 10). But in Megha Singh the search was not conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, as an NDPS case requires (para 11). Here the search was conducted in the presence of and under the instructions of the DSP, and the depositions showed that the complainant was not alone in the investigation (paras 6, 11). The principle of Megha Singh, followed in Rajangam, "does not get attracted in the present matter" (para 11). The Court added that the point was not a ground raised earlier and found no mention in the High Court's judgment (para 11).
Legal Principle
The principle of Megha Singh, followed in Rajangam, that a complainant should not investigate his own case, is not attracted where the NDPS search was conducted in the presence of and under the instructions of a Gazetted Officer and the complainant was not alone in the investigation (paras 10-11).
Precedents Relied Upon
- State by Inspector of Police, Narcotic Intelligence Bureau, Madhurai, Tamil Nadu v. Rajangam (2010) 15 SCC 369
Affirmed an acquittal relying on Megha Singh because the complainant officer had investigated; not attracted where the search was made under a Gazetted Officer's instructions and the complainant was not alone in the investigation.
- Megha Singh v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 709
A complainant head constable should not have proceeded with the investigation; there the search was not made before a Gazetted Officer, no independent witness was examined and police depositions were discrepant.
