Case Title: Mukesh Singh V. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi)
The Supreme Court's Constitution Bench ruled that it cannot be assumed that an accused person under the NDPS Act is entitled to an acquittal just because the complainant is the investigating officer.
The bench particularly overruled Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab and stated, "Merely because the informant and the investigating officer are the same, it cannot be held that the investigation is prejudiced, and the trial is vitiated."
The Constitution Bench explained that whether an inquiry has been corrupted because the informant and the investigating officer were the same depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. It cannot be used as a general guideline. Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M. R. Shah, and S. Ravindra Bhat reached the following decision:
I. That the observations of this Court in the cases of Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan; Megha Singh v. State of Haryana; and State by Inspector of Police, NIB, Tamil Nadu v. Rajangam and the acquittal of the accused by this Court on the ground that as the informant and the investigator was the same, it has vitiated the trial and the accused is entitled to acquittal are to be treated to be confined to their own facts. It cannot be said that in the aforesaid decisions, this Court laid down any general proposition of law that in each and every case where the informant is the investigator there is a bias caused to the accused and the entire prosecution case is to be disbelieved and the accused is entitled to acquittal.
II. In a case where the informant himself is the investigator, by that itself cannot be said that the investigation is vitiated on the ground of bias or any other similar factor. The question of bias or prejudice would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, merely because the informant is the investigator, by that itself the investigation would not suffer the vice of unfairness or bias and therefore on the sole ground that the informant is the investigator, the accused is not entitled to acquittal. The matter has to be decided on a case-to-case basis. A contrary decision of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab and any other decision taking a contrary view that the informant cannot be the investigator and in such a case the accused is entitled to acquittal are not good law and they are specifically overruled.
In a case involving the question of whether the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act trial will be tainted if the informant and the investigating officer are the same people, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court gave its ruling.
The trial of charges brought under the NDPS Act will be tainted if the informant and the investigating officer are the same people, a three-judge panel ruled in Mohanlal v. State of Punjab. "Therefore, it is decided that the informant and the investigator must not be the same person in order for there to be a fair inquiry, which is just the basis for a fair trial. Not only must justice be served, but it must also appear to be served. One must rule out any chance of prejudice or a preconceived result. This condition is even more important when there is a reverse burden of evidence in the legislation ", according to the ruling in question.
A two-judge panel made up of Justices U. U. Lalit and M. R. Shah questioned the validity of this position in Mukesh Singh v. State, stating that the issue must be resolved on a case-by-case basis and that there cannot be a general rule that trials in cases where the informant and the investigating officer are the same will be tainted. The bench led by Justice Lalit made the following observation while referring to a larger case: "In a given case, where the complainant himself had conducted an investigation, such aspect of the matter can certainly be given due weightage while assessing the evidence on the record, but it would be completely a different thing to say that the trial itself would be vitiated for such infraction."