Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2009 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (4) TMI 947 - SC - Indian LawsPossession of bag, contained narcotic substance - On the basis of Information given in writing, P.W.5 met P.W.6 and appraised him - Thereafter, PWs 4, 5 and 6 went to the departmental store and arrested the accused - officers found 5 Kgs of opium - P.W.6 registered a case - accused was convicted - According to the submission advanced on behalf of the accused, the crime ought to have been investigated by another independent officer and not by P.W.6.- HC found substance in this submission and acquitted the accused - Aggrieved by the judgment of the HC, the State, through Inspector of Police, referred a special leave petition under Article 136 - Whether P.W.6 who registered the crime could have investigated the case or an independent officer ought to have investigated the case - HELD THAT:- In Megna Singh v. State of Haryana [1995 (2) TMI 445 - SUPREME COURT], 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 ratio of Megna's case has been followed by other cases. In another case in Balasundaran v. State 1999 [1999 (7) TMI 672 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], the High Court took the same view. '' No doubt the successor to P.W. 5 alone had filed the charge sheet. But there is no material to show that he had examined any other witness. It therefore follows that P.W. 5 was the person who really investigated 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, the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused. The appeal, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed.
|