2004 JTR(SC) 536
2004 3 AICLR 901 ; 2004 AIR(SC) 4608 ; 2004 AIR(SCW) 4203 ; 2004 1 ALD(Cri)(SC) 1015 ; 2004 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 2229 ; 2004 2 ApexCJ(SC) 47 ; 2004 4 BBCJ(SC) 19 ; 2004 2 CCR(SC) 349 ; 2004 3 CriCC 253 ; 2004 CriLR 717 ; 2004 3 Crimes(SC) 109 ; 2004 CrLJ 3834 ; 2004 2 JCC 1048 ; 2004 Supp2 JT 507 ; 2004 3 RCR(Cri) 333 ; 2004 5 Scale 780 ; 2004 5 SCC 230 ; 2004 SCC(Cri) 1584 ; 2004 SCR 607 ; 2004 2 WLC 420 ; 2004 KHC 1019 ; 2004 1 KLT(Online) 1290 ; 2004 4 Supreme 245
2004(4) Supreme 245
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
K.G. Balakrishnan & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ.
S. Jeevanantham -Appellant
versus
The State through Inspector of Police, TN -Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 28 and 29 of 2002
Decided on 21-4-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : T.N. Singh, Shiam Narain Singh, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao and Shakil Ahmed, Advocates.
For the Respondent : K.R. Sasiprabhu, Ramesh Babu M.R., Ms. Sushma Suri, Subramonium Prasad and Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
In absence of any circumstance showing prejudice or bias caused to accused, conviction under NDPS Act against accused could not be disturbed merely because officer who conducted search and recovered contraband and got case registered proceeded with further investigation.
Act Referred :NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT : S.161, S.20(b), S.8(c), S.20(b)(2)
(A) The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act provisions S.8(c) and S.20(b)(2) apply to offences involving possession of narcotic drugs such as hashish. Sections S.161 and S.20(b) govern the powers of police officers to conduct searches, seizures, and investigations in cases of suspected drug trafficking. The recovery of contraband material during a search conducted in compliance with the Act forms the direct basis for prosecuting the accused under these sections.
(B) Key legal principles include that an investigating officer who registers an FIR and conducts a search does not automatically render the investigation vitiated, and any challenge to the fairness of the investigation must be based on demonstrable bias or prejudice rather than mere role overlap. The sufficiency of evidence seized during a valid search and the correctness of the Special Judges findings are also determinative.
Facts of the case:
The appellants were arrested during separate search operations conducted by law enforcement officers acting under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. During these searches, approximately one kilogram of hashish was recovered from two appellants, and two kilograms were recovered from a third appellant following information received. The appellants were tried by a Special Judge under the NDPS Act, convicted, and subsequently filed appeals which were dismissed by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The Special Judge found the appellants guilty based on the seized evidence and the investigation process. The High Court confirmed the convictions, and the Supreme Court held that the mere fact that the same officer registered the FIR and investigated the case did not, without more, vitiate the investigation or demonstrate bias, given the absence of any showing of prejudice.
Issues:
Whether an officer who provides the initial information, conducts a search, registers the FIR, and investigates the case necessarily results in a biased or prejudiced investigation within the meaning of the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi:
The investigation was not rendered unlawful or biased simply because the same officer performed multiple roles, as long as there was no actual bias or prejudice. The recovery of narcotics was properly effected under the Act, and the Special Judges findings were within the bounds of permissible judicial review.
Result:
The appeals are dismissed as they lack merit, and the convictions of the appellants are upheld.
(A) The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act provisions S.8(c) and S.20(b)(2) apply to offences involving possession of narcotic drugs such as hashish. Sections S.161 and S.20(b) govern the powers of police officers to conduct searches, seizures, and investigations in cases of suspected drug trafficking. The recovery of contraband material during a search conducted in compliance with the Act forms the direct basis for prosecuting the accused under these sections.
(B) Key legal principles include that an investigating officer who registers an FIR and conducts a search does not automatically render the investigation vitiated, and any challenge to the fairness of the investigation must be based on demonstrable bias or prejudice rather than mere role overlap. The sufficiency of evidence seized during a valid search and the correctness of the Special Judges findings are also determinative.
Facts of the case:
The appellants were arrested during separate search operations conducted by law enforcement officers acting under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. During these searches, approximately one kilogram of hashish was recovered from two appellants, and two kilograms were recovered from a third appellant following information received. The appellants were tried by a Special Judge under the NDPS Act, convicted, and subsequently filed appeals which were dismissed by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The Special Judge found the appellants guilty based on the seized evidence and the investigation process. The High Court confirmed the convictions, and the Supreme Court held that the mere fact that the same officer registered the FIR and investigated the case did not, without more, vitiate the investigation or demonstrate bias, given the absence of any showing of prejudice.
Issues:
Whether an officer who provides the initial information, conducts a search, registers the FIR, and investigates the case necessarily results in a biased or prejudiced investigation within the meaning of the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi:
The investigation was not rendered unlawful or biased simply because the same officer performed multiple roles, as long as there was no actual bias or prejudice. The recovery of narcotics was properly effected under the Act, and the Special Judges findings were within the bounds of permissible judicial review.
Result:
The appeals are dismissed as they lack merit, and the convictions of the appellants are upheld.
ORDER
The appellants in these two appeals were tried by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Madurai. Both of them were found guilty of offences under section 8(C) read with section 20(b) (2) of the NDPS Act. PW-7 the Sub-Inspector, Thirumangalam Police Station got information that narcotic drug was being sold at some places and he recorded information and sent the same to the superior officer and he along with PW-8 went to the place and found that appellant Muniyandi and one Kannan and PW-7 told them that they are to be searched. The search was conducted and each one of them was having one kg. of "Hashish". On the basis of the information furnished by them, the police party went to Muthudevanpatti and found out the appellant Jeevanantham. He was searched after complying with section 50 of the Act and found to be in possession of 2 kgs. of "Hashish". The appellants were found guilty by the Special Judge and they filed an appeal against the conviction. Appellant Muniyandi and Jeevanantham filed separate appeals before the High Court and the High Court dismissed their two appeals and hence these appeals by way of Special Leave.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The counsel for the appellants contended that PW-8 the Inspector after conducting search prepared the FIR and it was on the basis of the statement of PW8 the case was registered against the appellants and it is argued that PW-8 was the complainant and he himself conducted the investigation of the case and this is illegal and the entire investigation of the case is vitiated. Reliance was placed on the decision in Megha Singh Vs. State of Haryana (1996 (11) SCC 709) wherein this Court observed that constable, who was the defacto complainant had himself investigated the case and this affects impartial investigation. This Court said that Head Constable who arrested the accused, conducted the search, recovered the pistol and on his complaint FIR was lodged and the case was initiated and later he himself recorded the statement of the witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. as part of the investigation and such practice may not be resorted to as it may affect the fair and impartial investigation. This decision was later referred to by this Court in State Vs. V. Jayapaul (2004 (3) SCALE 507) wherein it was observed that:
"We find no principle or binding authority to hold that the moment the competent police officer, on the basis of information received, makes out an FIR incorporating his name as the informant, he forfeits his right to investigate. If at all, such investigation could only be assailed on the ground of bias or real likelihood of bias on the part of the investigating officer. The question of bias would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and it is not proper to lay down a broad and unqualified proposition, in the manner in which it has been done."
3. In the instant case, PW-8 conducted the search and recovered the contraband article and registered the case and the article seized from the appellant was narcotic drug and the counsel for the appellant could not point out any circumstances by which the investigation caused prejudiced or was biased against the appellant. PW-8 in his official capacity gave the information, registered the case and as part of his official duty and later investigated the case and filed charge-sheet. He was not in any way personally interested in the case. We are unable to find any sort of bias in the process of investigation.
4. The appellants have been rightly convicted by the Special Judge and the High Court was also justified in confirming the conviction and sentence. These appeals are without any merit and are accordingly dismissing.
Appeal dismissed.
*************
00029
00030