Supreme Court: Holding that an accused was not entitled to acquittal on the mere ground that the investigation of the matter had been carried out by the very police officer who had also registered the crime, the Supreme Court observed that in the instant case the search of the appellant at the time of his apprehension was conducted in the presence and under the instructions of a Gazetted Officer. Further, the extracts of depositions of other prosecution witnesses revealed that the said complainant officer was not the only one involved in the investigation.
The Bench comprising of V. Gopala Gowda and Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ. upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for being in possession of 1 kg of opium without any permit or licence. Relying on State v. Rajangam, (2010) 15 SCC 369 wherein the Supreme Court had acquitted the accused on similar ground, the appellant had contended that the investigation was improper and he was entitled to acquittal.
Distinguishing the case on facts, the Court held that the principle as laid down in Megha Singh v. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 709 which was followed in State v. Rajangam, (2010) 15 SCC 369 does not get attracted in the instant case. In Megha case, the search had not been conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, as is required under the statutory provisions unlike the instant case. [Surender v. State of Haryana, 2016 SCC Online SC 49 , decided on 19.01.2016]