MOHANLAL versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2018] 9 S.C.R. 1006 · Decided: 16-08-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1006
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
                                        MOHAN LAL
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 1880 of 2011)
AUGUST 16, 2018
[RANJAN GOGOI, R. BANUMATHI AND
NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:
Fairness and impartiality in investigation – Informant and
investigator, if same person – Sanctity of such investigation –
Whether in a criminal prosecution, it will be in consonance with the
principles of justice, fair play and a fair investigation, if the
informant and the investigating officer were to be the same person
– Held: If an informant police official in a criminal prosecution,
especially when carrying a reverse burden of proof, makes the
allegations and is himself asked to investigate, serious doubts would
naturally arise with regard to his fairness and impartiality – It is
not necessary to actually prove bias – It would be illogical to presume
and would be contrary to normal human conduct, that he would
himself at the end of the investigation submit a closure report to
conclude false implication with all its attendant consequences for
the complainant himself – The result of the investigation would,
therefore, be a foregone conclusion – A fair investigation, which is
but the very foundation of fair trial, necessarily postulates that the
informant and the investigator must not be the same person – Justice
must not only be done, but must appear to be done also – Any
possibility of bias or a predetermined conclusion has to be
excluded – This requirement is all the more imperative in laws
carrying a reverse burden of proof – Bias – Criminal law – Fair
trial – Investigation – Natural justice – Evidence – Reverse burden
of proof.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: s.18
– Conviction under –  Recovery of opium – The informant-police
official PW-1 accompanied by the Sarpanch and another police
office recovered 4 kg of opium from a bag carried by appellant –
Consent memo signed by the Sarpanch and PW-1 – PW-1 did not
1006
[2018] 9 S.C.R. 1006
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1007
deposit the narcotics in the malkhana – Conviction by courts below –
On appeal, held:  The Sarpanch was stated to have been
accompanying the police official (PW1) and ASI in a police vehicle
while on official duty – This is certainly not in the normal course of
events – The consent memo was stated to have been signed by the
Sarpanch, despite he being an illiterate – There was no explanation
from the prosecution why the Sarpanch and ASI were not examined
despite service of summons on the official witness and issuance of
bailable warrants against the private witness – In their absence,
neither the consent memo nor the seal can be stated to be proved –
The presence of a private person in a police vehicle while on patrol
duty, the individual being an illiterate, but having signed the consent
memo were surely matters for investigation – The case property was
retained by PW-1 in his private custody in a rented accommodation
and was not deposited in the malkhana nor entered in the
roznamcha –  There was nine days’ delay in sending the sample for
chemical analysis – No explanation was furnished in respect of the
same – The delay in sending the sample for chemical analysis, in
the facts and circumstances of the case was again a matter for
investigation – Prosecution was vitiated because of the infraction
of the consitutional guarantee of a fair investigation – Appellant
directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: s.55 –
Held: It is the duty of the police officer to deposit the seized material
in the police station malkhana.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:
Burden of proof – The stringent provisions of the NDPS Act do not
dispense with the requirement of the prosecution to establish a prima
facie case beyond reasonable doubt after investigation, only after
which the burden of proof shall shift to the accused – The case of
the prosecution cannot be allowed to rest on a preponderance of
probabilities.
Investigation: Fair trial – Reverse burden of proof – Onus to
prove – In NDPS cases – Held: A fair trial to an accused, a
constitutional guarantee under Art.21 of the Constitution, would
be a hollow promise if the investigation in a NDPS case were not to
be fair or raises serious questions about its fairness apparent on
the face of the investigation – In the nature of the reverse burden of
MOHAN LAL 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.