MUKESH SINGH versus STATE (NARCOTIC BRANCH OF DELHI)

Citation: [2020] 9 S.C.R. 245 · Decided: 31-08-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Reference answered

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 26 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
245
MUKESH SINGH
v.
STATE (NARCOTIC BRANCH OF DELHI)
(Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 39528 of 2018)
AUGUST 31, 2020
[ARUN MISHRA, INDIRA BANERJEE,VINEET SARAN,
M. R. SHAH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
Informant-police officer who is the complainant himself conducts
investigation – Trial, if vitiated; and the accused if entitled to
acquittal – Conflicting opinions – Matter initially referred to three
Judge Bench – Further referred to five Judge Bench – Held: Under
the scheme of CrPC, there is no bar to a police officer receiving
information for commission of a cognizable offence, recording the
same and then investigating it – On the contrary, ss.154, 156 and
157, CrPC permits the officer in charge of a police station to reduce
such information in writing and thereafter to investigate the same –
As per s.51, NDPS Act, the provisions of CrPC shall apply, insofar
as they are not inconsistent with its provisions, to all warrants issued
and arrests, searches and seizures made under the Act – NDPS Act
being a special Act with special procedure to be followed under
Chapter V, does not specifically bar the informant/complainant to
be an investigator and officer in charge of a police station for
investigation of offences under the NDPS Act – On the contrary, it
permits – In view of the safeguard provided under the Act itself in
s.58, there cannot be any general proposition of law that in every
case where the informant is the investigator, the trial is vitiated and
the accused is entitled to acquittal – Further, whether the
investigation by the concerned informant was fair or not is always
to be decided at the time of trial – Merely because the informant is
the investigator, by that itself the investigation would not suffer the
vice of unfairness/bias – Matter has to be decided on a case to
case basis – Contrary decision in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab
(2018) 17 SCC 627 and any other decision taking a contrary view
are not good law and are overruled – Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 – ss.2(o), 100, 154, 156, 157, 173, 465 –
[2020] 9 S.C.R. 245
245
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
246
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
Constitution of India – Art.21– Evidence Act,1872 – Illustration(e)
to s.114.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.2(o), 154, 156, 157 –
Held: Officer in charge of a police station defined u/s.2(o) has to
reduce an information alleging commission of a cognizable offence
in writing which may be termed as FIR and he is required to further
investigate the information, which is reduced in writing.
Words & Expressions –”information” in s.154, CrPC – Held:
Use of expression “information” without any qualification denotes
that police has to record information despite it being unsatisfied by
its reasonableness or credibility – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
– s.154.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
ss.41, 42, 43, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 57A, 67, 68 – Procedure
to issue warrant; seizure and arrest in public place; entry; stop and
search conveyance, persons – Scheme of the Act – Discussed.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
ss.41, 42, 43, 44, 53 – Held: s.53 authorises the Central Government
or the State Government, as the case may be, to invest any officer
of the department of drugs control, revenue or excise or any other
department or any class of such officers with the powers of an
officer in charge of a police station for investigation of offences
under the NDPS Act – It does not speak that all such officers shall
be other than those officers authorised u/ss.41, 42, 43, and 44 –
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
ss.50, 52, 58 – Inbuilt safeguards under the Act – Discussed.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
ss.35, 54 – Reverse burden of proof – Held: Presumption under the
Act is against the accused as per ss.35 and 54 – In the cases of
reverse burden of proof, the presumption can operate only after the
initial burden existing on the prosecution is satisfied – Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.304B – Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.157– Constitution of India – Art.21.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
247
Answering the reference, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the case of Mohan Lal, after having noted
the conflicting opinions expressed by different two Judge
Benches of this Court, one in the cases of Bhagwan Singh and
Megha Si

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