Summary
The Constitution Bench held that an investigation is not automatically unfair or invalid merely because the informant also investigates the case. Bias or prejudice must be examined on the particular facts; that combination of roles alone does not entitle an accused to acquittal, including under the NDPS Act. Mohan Lal and decisions adopting the contrary automatic-acquittal rule were expressly overruled. The individual petitions were returned for decision on their merits.
Issues
- Whether an informant’s investigation of the same case necessarily vitiates the prosecution.
- Whether the NDPS statutory scheme and reverse burden require an automatic separation of informant and investigator.
- Whether Mohan Lal stated the correct rule.
Provisions considered
- Sections 42, 51, 52 and 53, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Read the statutory powers and safeguards as containing no absolute prohibition on the informant also being the authorised investigator. (¶¶ 9.3, 9.3.3, 9.3.4, 9.3.5, 9.3.6, 9.3.7, 9.3.8, 9.4, 9.5, 11)
Held
- The criminal procedure scheme does not disqualify an otherwise competent officer from investigating merely because that officer recorded the information or initiated the case. The same officer’s involvement is a matter for evaluating fairness and evidence, rather than an automatic jurisdictional bar. (¶¶ 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.2.3, 9, 9.1, 9.2, 11, 12)
- The NDPS Act does not require officers empowered for search, seizure or arrest to be different from those empowered to investigate. Its inbuilt safeguards and the statutory authorisation scheme do not support importing an absolute prohibition absent from the text. (¶¶ 9.3, 9.3.2, 9.3.3, 9.3.4, 9.3.5, 9.3.6, 9.3.7, 9.3.8, 9.4, 9.5, 10, 11)
- Bias, prejudice or real likelihood of bias depends on the circumstances and must be established rather than inferred solely from the combined roles. Police testimony is assessed like other testimony and does not invariably require independent corroboration. The investigator remains subject to cross-examination and scrutiny at trial. (¶¶ 10, 10.1, 11, 12)
- Reverse-burden presumptions operate only after the prosecution satisfies its initial burden. Their existence does not itself require automatic acquittal where the informant investigates. Investigation of an allegation of malicious statutory action against the officer is different: the proposed accused officer cannot investigate that allegation against himself. (¶¶ 10.2, 10.3, 11)
- The acquittals and observations in Bhagwan Singh, Megha Singh and Rajangam were confined to their facts. Mohan Lal and other decisions declaring that the informant cannot investigate and that this alone entitles the accused to acquittal were expressly overruled. (¶¶ 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.3, 8.1.4, 12, 13)
Result
Reference answered: common identity of informant and investigator does not by itself vitiate investigation or require acquittal. Respective petitions directed to the appropriate Court for decision on merits under the stated principles.