S. JEEVANANTHAM versus THE STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TN

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 607 · Decided: 21-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, B.N. SRIKRISHNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S. JEEVANANTHAM 
A 
v. 
THE STA TE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE, 1N 
APRIL 21, 2004 
[K. G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
B 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: 
Ss. 8 (c) and 20(b)-Same Police Officer preparing FIR and conducting 
investigation-Legality of investigation-Police informed of accused selling C 
'Hashish '-Accused found in possession of contraband articles-Inspector 
prepared FIR and conducted investigation-On trial accused found guilty 
and convicted-Plea of accused that investigation was biased as case was 
investigated by the same Inspector on whose statement case was registered--
Held, the Inspector conducted the search and recovered the contraband D 
article and registered the case-The article seized from the accused was 
narcotic drug-There is nothing on record to indicate that the investigation 
caused prejudice or was biased against the accused-The Inspector in his 
official capacity gave the information, registered the case and as part of his 
official duty later investigated the case and filed charge-sheet-He was not 
in any way personally interested in the case-There cannot be said to be any E' 
bias in the process of investigation. 
State v. V. Jayapaul, (2004) 3 SCALE 507, relied on. 
Megha Singh v. State of Haryana, [1996) 11 SCC 709, distinguished. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 28 and 
29of2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19 .6.200 l of the Madras High Court 
in Crl. A. No. 1106/1998. 
T.N. Singh, Shiam Narain Singh, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Mrs. B. Sunita 
Rao and Shakil Ahmed for the Appellant. 
F, 
G 
K.R. Sasiprabhu, Ramesh Babu M.R., Ms. Sushma Suri, Subramonium 
Prasad and Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent. 
607 
H 
608 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
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)(2) of the NDPS Act. PW-7 the Sub-
Inspector, Thirumangalam Police Station, got information t~at narcotic drug 
B 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 
that 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 
C 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 kgs. of "Hashish". The appellants were 
found guilty by tl;te 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 
D hence these appeals by way of Special Leave. 
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 PW8 the case was 
registered against the appellants and it is argued that PW-8 was the complainant 
E 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 thfs 
Court observed that constable, who was the defacto complainant, had himself 
investigated the case and this affects impartial investigation. This Court said 
F that 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, Cr.P.C. as part of the investigation and such practice may not be 
resorted to as it may affect the fair and impartial investigation. This decision 
was later referred to by this Court in State v. V. Javapaul, (2004] 3 ·SCALE 
G 507 wherein it was observed that : 
H 
"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 
S. JEEVANANTHAM v. ST

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