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

O R D E R

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  by

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 them  

2

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  the  

3

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 disturbing  feature  in  this  case.   P.W.3,  Sri  Chand,  Head  Constable arrested the accused and on search being  conducted by him a pistol and the cartridges were  recovered  from  the  accused.   It  was  on  his  complaint  a  formal  first  information  report  was  lodged  and  the  case  was  initiated.   He  being  complainant  should  not  have  proceeded  with  the  investigation of the case. But it appears to us that  he was not only the complainant in the case but he  carried  on  with  the  investigation  and  examined  witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.  Such practice,  to say the least, should not be resorted to so that  

4

there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and  impartial 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 stated  that P.W. 5 being the Inspector of Police who was  present  at  the  time  of  search  and  he  was  the  investigating officer  and as such it  is  fatal  to  the  case  of  the  prosecution.  P.W.  5,  according  to  the  prosecution, was present with PWs 3 and 4 at the  time  of  search.  In  fact,  P.W.  5  alone  took  up  investigation in the case and he had examined the  witnesses. 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  (supra),  the  High  Court  was  justified  in  

acquitting the accused. We see no infirmity in the view which  

5

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.

6