- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
S. Jeevanantham v. State Through Inspector Of Police, T.N .
Factual and Procedural Background
PW 7, a Sub-Inspector at Thirumangalam Police Station, received information that narcotic drugs were being sold. After recording this information and informing his superior, he and PW 8 proceeded to the location, where they searched the appellant Muniyandi and one Kannan, each of whom was found with 1 kg of hashish. Acting on information obtained from them, the police went to Muthudevanpatti and, after complying with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, searched the appellant Jeevanantham, recovering 2 kg of hashish.
The two appellants were tried by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Madurai, and convicted under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. Separate appeals to the High Court were dismissed. The present judgment resolves their further appeals by special leave to the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the investigation was vitiated because PW 8, who conducted the search and was the de facto complainant, also investigated the case and filed the charge-sheet, allegedly infringing the requirement of an impartial investigation.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- PW 8 both prepared the First Information Report (FIR) and conducted the investigation, making him complainant-cum-investigator and rendering the investigation illegal and biased.
- Reliance was placed on Megha Singh v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 709, where such a practice was criticised as affecting impartiality.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Megha Singh v. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 709 | Observation that an officer who is the de facto complainant should not investigate, as it may affect impartiality. | Cited by appellants; the Court distinguished it by noting subsequent authority and absence of demonstrated bias. |
| State v. Jayapaul, (2004) 5 SCC 223 | There is no absolute rule that an officer who registers an FIR is disqualified from investigating; bias must be shown on facts. | Relied on by the Court to affirm that investigation by PW 8 was permissible absent evidence of actual bias. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that PW 8, acting in his official capacity, conducted the search, registered the case, and later investigated it. The appellants failed to demonstrate any circumstance indicating prejudice or bias resulting from this sequence of events. Referring to State v. Jayapaul, the Court held that an officer does not automatically forfeit the right to investigate merely because he is the informant; only proven bias would vitiate the investigation. Finding no such bias, the Court concluded that the investigation was valid and the convictions were not compromised.
Holding and Implications
APPEALS DISMISSED; CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES UPHELD.
The decision leaves the appellants’ convictions intact and reiterates that an investigating officer who is also the informant does not, by that fact alone, render the investigation unfair. No new precedent is set; the Court applies existing principles requiring proof of actual bias to invalidate an investigation.
Order
1. The appellants in these two appeals were tried by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Madurai. Both of them were found guilty of offences under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. PW 7, the Sub-Inspector, Thirumangalam Police Station got information that narcotic drug was being sold at some places and he recorded information and sent the same to the superior officer and he along with PW 8 went to the place and found the appellant Muniyandi and one Kannan and PW 7 told them that they are to be searched. The search was conducted and each one of them was having one kg of “hashish”. On the basis of the information furnished by them, the police party went to Muthudevanpatti and found out the appellant Jeevanantham. He was searched after complying with Section 50 of the Act and found to be in possession of 2 kg of “hashish”. The appellants were found guilty by the Special Judge and they filed an appeal against the conviction. Appellant Muniyandi and Jeevanantham filed separate appeals before the High Court and the High Court dismissed their two appeals and hence these appeals by way of special leave.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The counsel for the appellants contended that PW 8, the Inspector after conducting search prepared the FIR and it was on the basis of the statement of PW 8 the case was registered against the appellants and it is argued that PW 8 was the complainant and he himself conducted the investigation of the case and this is illegal and the entire investigation of the case is vitiated. Reliance was placed on the decision in Megha Singh v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 709 wherein this Court observed that the constable, who was the de facto complainant had himself investigated the case and this affects impartial investigation. This Court said that the Head Constable who arrested the accused, conducted the search, recovered the pistol and on his complaint FIR was lodged and the case was initiated and later he himself recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 CrPC as part of the investigation and such practice may not be resorted to as it may affect fair and impartial investigation. This decision was later referred to by this Court in State v. V. Jayapaul (2004) 5 SCC 223, (2004) 3 Scale 507 wherein it was observed that:
“We find no principle or binding authority to hold that the moment the competent police officer, on the basis of information received, makes out an FIR incorporating his name as the informant, he forfeits his right to investigate. If at all, such investigation could only be assailed on the ground of bias or real likelihood of bias on the part of the investigating officer. The question of bias would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and it is not proper to lay down a broad and unqualified proposition, in the manner in which it has been done….”
3. In the instant case, PW 8 conducted the search and recovered the contraband article and registered the case and the article seized from the appellants was narcotic drug and the counsel for the appellants could not point out any circumstances by which the investigation caused prejudice or was biased against the appellants. PW 8 in his official capacity gave the information, registered the case and as part of his official duty later investigated the case and filed a charge-sheet. He was not in any way personally interested in the case. We are unable to find any sort of bias in the process of investigation.
4. The appellants have been rightly convicted by the Special Judge and the High Court was also justified in confirming the conviction and sentence. These appeals are without any merit and are accordingly dismissed.
Alert