State vs Rajangam
- SCC(2010) 15 SCC 369
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An officer of police who registers a first information report and arrests an accused in the same transaction should not proceed to investigate that case; investigation ought to be conducted by an independent officer to ensure fair and impartial investigation and to dispel any occasion for suspicion regarding the fairness of the investigation process.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.886 OF 2002.
State by Inspector of Police,NIB, Madurai, Tamil Nadu .. Appellant
Versus
Rajangam .. Respondent
ORDER
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High
Court of Madras dated 15th June, 2001 delivered in Criminal
Appeal No. 523 of 1997.
Brief facts of the case in nutshell are as follows:
Kalidasan, Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.4 received an
information that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the
accused) was transporting contraband articles and that the
accused could be caught with the contraband if he goes to the
Nandhi Departmental Stores. This information received by2
P.W.4 was conveyed to his superior P.W.5, who was the
Inspector of Police, Narcotic Intelligence Bureau during the
relevant period. The said information given in writing is
Ex.P.6. On the basis of the said information, P.W.5 met P.W.6
and appraised him of the said fact. Thereafter, PWs 4, 5 and
6 went to the said departmental store and arrested the
accused. The accused was found in possession of a bag which
contained the narcotic substance.
The accused was informed of his right under section 50
of the Act. Thereafter, the bag was searched and the officers
found 5 Kgs. of opium in the said bag. After taking 10 grams
of opium for sample, the remaining opium was also taken in a
packet. The sample packet as well as the other packet was
sealed in the presence of the witnesses. The accused was
brought to the police station. P.W.6 registered a case in Crime
No. 64 of 1994 and took up investigation. Ex.P.7 is the copy
of the printed first information report. He questioned the
witnesses and recorded their statements. He sent Ex.P.8 (his
report) to the superior officer under section 57 of the Act. The
same was sent to the court with a requisition to forward them3
for analysis. On receipt of the report from the chemical
analyst, the final report was filed against the accused.
The accused was convicted by the Special District and
Sessions Judge, Madurai and was directed to undergo 10
years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and,
in default, to further undergo 3 years simple imprisonment.
The accused preferred an appeal before the High Court.
It was submitted on behalf of the accused before the High
Court that the officer who had registered the crime in the case,
also investigated the said crime. It was also submitted that
the crime was registered by P.W.6 and that the case was also
investigated by him. 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.
The High Court found substance in this submission made on
behalf of the accused and acquitted the accused.
Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court, the
State, through Inspector of Police, NIB, Madurai, Tamil Nadu,
preferred a special leave petition under Article 136 of the4
Constitution before this Court. This Court granted leave on
29.8.2002.
The short question which falls for consideration of this
Court is whether P.W.6 who registered the crime could have
investigated the case or an independent officer ought to have
investigated the case.
The learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted
that the controversy involved in this case is no longer res
integra. In Megna Singh v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC
709, 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 relevant paragraph reads as
under:
"4. ........ We have also noted another disturbingfeature in this case. P.W.3, Sri Chand, HeadConstable arrested the accused and on search beingconducted by him a pistol and the cartridges wererecovered from the accused. It was on hiscomplaint a formal first information report waslodged and the case was initiated. He beingcomplainant should not have proceeded with theinvestigation of the case. But it appears to us thathe was not only the complainant in the case but hecarried on with the investigation and examinedwitnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Such practice,to say the least, should not be resorted to so that5
there may not be any occasion to suspect fair andimpartial investigation."
The ratio of Megna's case has been followed by other
cases.
In another case in Balasundaran v. State 1999 (113)
ELT 785 (Mad), in para 16, the Madras High Court took the
same view. The relevant portion reads as under:
"16. Learned Counsel for the appellants also statedthat P.W. 5 being the Inspector of Police who waspresent at the time of search and he was theinvestigating officer and as such it is fatal to thecase of the prosecution. P.W. 5, according to theprosecution, was present with PWs 3 and 4 at thetime of search. In fact, P.W. 5 alone took upinvestigation in the case and he had examined thewitnesses. No doubt the successor to P.W. 5 alonehad filed the charge sheet. But there is no materialto show that he had examined any other witness. Ittherefore follows that P.W. 5 was the person whoreally investigated the case. P.W. 5 was the personwho had searched the appellants in question and hebeing the investigation officer, certainly it is notproper and correct. The investigation ought to havebeen done by any other investigating agency. Onthis score also, the investigation is bound to sufferand as such the entire proceedings will be vitiated."
In this view of the legal position, as crystallized in Megna
Singh's case (supra), the High Court was justified in
acquitting the accused. We see no infirmity in the view which 6
has been taken by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
In our considered view, no interference is called for. The
appeal, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed.
..........................................J. (Dalveer Bhandari)
.........................................J. (Dr. Mukundakam Sharma) New Delhi;
April 30, 2009.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free