Holding

The defence version was not trustworthy, no bias existed, Section 55 was not mandatory in the facts, and the delay did not prejudice the accused, so the conviction stands.

Summary

Hardip Singh was found in possession of 7 kg of opium during a police search and was convicted under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, receiving ten years' rigorous imprisonment. He appealed, alleging that the investigating officer, Inspector Jarnail Singh, bore a personal grudge stemming from a prior vehicle accident and that this bias, together with procedural lapses—failure to affix a seal under Section 55 and a 40‑day delay in sending the seized sample to the forensic laboratory—invalidated the recovery. The Supreme Court examined the authenticity of the appellant's defence documents, the alleged grievance, and the statutory requirements for handling seized narcotics. It held that the defence documents were doubtful, no bias could be established, the seal requirement under Section 55 was not mandatory in the circumstances, and the delay did not prejudice the accused. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.

Issues considered

The alleged personal grudge of the investigating officer rendered the investigation biased and invalid.
Whether the failure to affix a seal under Section 55 of the NDPS Act violated mandatory procedural requirements.
Whether the 40‑day delay in forwarding the seized opium sample to the forensic laboratory caused prejudice to the accused.
The admissibility and credibility of the defence documents (apology memo and complaint letters).
Whether an officer who is also the complainant can act as the investigating officer.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s. 18, s. 50, s. 51, s. 52, s. 53, s. 55

Subjects

NDPS ActSection 55bias in investigationseizure of narcoticsforensic sample delayevidence admissibilityinvestigating officer grievance

Judgment

[2008) 12 S.C.R. 311

•~ 1 HARDIP SINGH A
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 737 of 2007) '
AUGUST 20, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
I( SHARMA, JJ.]

-., Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
- s. 18 - Recovery of 7 kgs opium from the possession of c
accused - Defense case that Investigating Officer nourishing
personal grudge against accused, thus accused falsely im-
p/icated in a criminal case - Conviction and sentence of 10
years RI by courts below - On appeal, held: Defense version
is a story of whims and caprices of accused, thus, is not trust-
D
worthy and is rejected - There was no question of bias - In-
vestigating Officer made recoveries of opium and seized the
same and thus, was rightly made the Investigating Officer in
the case - Defense case was sought to be made out only dur-
ing the trial by which time investigation was complete - Sea/
in the sample were not tampered with at any stage - Delay of E
about 40 days in sending the samples did not cause preju-
dice to accused .:... A/so, submission that s. 55 was violated is
without merit- More.so, accused failed to show any prejudice
caused to him for not putting seal in the sample by officer-in-

.. tit
charge of police station.
According to the prosecution case, 7 kgs of opium
F

was recovered from the possession of the appellant-ac-
cused. The Inspector JS-PW-5, SI and other police offi-
cials intercepted a vehicle in which the appellant was trav-
G
elling. MS and SSM Deputy Superintendent of Police-PW

• 4 reached the place of occurrence. The consent memos
were prepared. Appellant signed it and the witnesses as
also PW 4 attested the same. On instruction of DSP-PW
311 H
)
.
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R

A 4, the Inspector-PW 5 conducted the search of the appel-
lant. One bag containing 7 kgs of opium was found in the
'( -··
right hand of the appellant. Two separate parcels were
prepared and sealed with the seals bearing inscription of
SSM and JS of DSP-PW 4 and lnspector:.Js. In one parcel
B 250 gms of opium was taken as a sample. The sealed
parcels were taken into possessiotl~nd~ttested by the
witnesses. The driver of the truck was also found in pos- ..
session of 3 kgs of opium. FIR was lodged. Appellant, ....
driver and the case property was produced before the ' I-

c Inspector-BS, SHO, Police Station, Ajnala who verified the
Investigation., The samples were sent for examination~ The
contents of the sample parcels were found to be of opium.
Witnesses were exaJ11ined. Trial court convicted the ap- t I
peilant and. the driy~r u/ 18 of the Narcotics Drugs and )

Psychotrgpic Substafl'ces Act, 1985 and imposed rigor-
D
ous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs one lakh.
High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant, how-
ever, acquitted the driver. Hence the present appeal. .4

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
E HELD: 1.1 With regard to the allegations that the In- "
vestigating Officer. JS-PW'S was nourishing a grudge ;
against th~apperiant over the vehicular accident, which
was ultimately compromised by a written apology, a pe- l>c
rusal of the document of apology, shows that it carries
F the signatures of various persons including GS-OW 3 and
.,.
HS-OW 5 but the signature of JS-PW 5, the investigating
officer of the case was not appearing in the said docu-
ment. PW 5 was also examined and cross examined at
" ~
>-

length but nbt a single question was put to him about the
G execution of the document of apology. No suggestion
was given to him that the said document was executed in
his presence and that he was also a consenting party to
the said document of apology. Therefore, the trial court
as also the High Court were justified in raising doubt
• <

H about the genuineness of the said defense case. A docu-
HARDIP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 313

...... J
~
ment can always be created falsely by obtaining signatures A
of few persons but the said doc;ument when produced in
evidence must be able to stand the test of genuineness. The
said document is a doubt~ul .and the genuin.eness of the
-f
same could not be. proved b9 the appellant since .he had
" failed to bring it to the notice of PW 5, during his cross ex- B
A amination, thP fact that the same was executed in his pres-
.. ence and with his consent. [Para 10] [319-G,H, 320-A-D]
1.2 So far as the complaints by the appellant on ac-
count of the personal grudge against the Inspector-PW
5, allegedly sent are concerned, the same are produced c
by GS the father of the appellant, only during .the course
of his examination. Whether or not such complaints were
in fact sent and were received by the addressee should
have been and were required to be proved in or.{J~r to es:-
tablish that they were actually sent and received, as al- D
leged. All the aforesaid document were also pressed be-
't fore the trial court as also the High Court and they have
;::..
given cogent reasons-for rejecting the defense version
as also for rejecting evidentiary value of the said docu-
ments. Therefore, the said defense version, which is put E
up by the appellant_is not trustworthy and stands reje·cted.
[Para 11] [320-D-F]
1.3 The delay in sending the samples of opium to
the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) has no conse-

•.... --;J
quence for the fact that the recovery of the said sample F
from the possession of the appellant stands proved and
established by cogent and reriable evidence led in the trial.
PW 5 has categorically stated and assert~d~about the re-
covery of opium from the possession of the appellant,
which fact is also corroborated by a higher officer, namely, G
DSP who was also examined at length during the trial.
~
The said recovery was effected in the presence of the said
DSP, as senior police officer, who ·also put his seal on the
said parcels of opium. The then Station House Officer, In-
spector BS who was examined as PW 1, was posted at H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A Police Station Ajnala on the date of occurrence. He re-
ceived the said sa_111ples of opium along with case mate-
rial, being produced before him by PW 5. It has come on
evidence that Inspector BS kept the entire case property
with him till it was deposited in the office of the Chemical
s Examiner, Amritsar on 30"9.1997 through ASI (PW-3). Till
the date the parcels of sample were received by the
Chemical Examiner, the seal put on the said parcels was
intact. That itself proves and establishes that there was
no tampering with the aforesaid seal in the s.ample at any
C stage and the sample received by the analyst for chemi-
cal examination contained the same opium which was re- ·
covered from the possession of the appellant. Thus, de-
lay of about 40 days in sending the samples did not and
could not have caused any prejudice to the appe11ant.
D [Para 12] [320 GH, 321-A-E]
1.4 The submission that s. 55 of the Act, which_ is a
mandatory provision, was violated is also found to be
without merit. The ·appellant failed to show any prejudice
c~used to him for not putting the seal in the sample by
E the officer-in-charge of the police station. PW 5 categori- i,_

cally stated that on reaching the Police Station, Ajnala, he ~
I

handed over the case property with the seals intact to
the officer-in-charge -of the said police station, who was
examined in the trial as PW 1. PW 1 in is deposition has
F also stated that Inspector JS produced before him the
case proJierty and sample on 20.8.1997 with seals intact.
He has also stated that 'so 'long the said articles remained
in his custody and possession, the same were not tam-
pered with. [Para 13] [321-F, 322-D-F]
G Kamai/ Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2000 (7) SCC 632;
Ouseph v. State of Kera/a 2004 (10) SCC 647 - referred to.
1.5 The order of the courts below is concurred with. T

The version of the defense is nothing more than a got up
H story of his own whims and caprices, thus, in the fact~
,---
"r
HARDIP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 315
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
. J
and circumstances of the present case the question of A
bias does not arise. JS made the recoveries of the opium
and_ seized the same and therefore, he was rightly made the
Investigating Officer in the case. The defense case which is
found to be a got up story was so_ught to be made out only
during the trial by which time investigation was complete. B
,• The submission that the Inspector JS was the complainant
....
and he should not have been made the Investigating Officer
is found to be without merit. [Para 14] (323-E-F]

State v. V Jayapaul 2004 (5) SCC 223 - referred to.
c
Case Law Referenc
2000 (7) sec 632 Referred to. Para 13
2004 (1 O) sec 647 Referred to. Para 13
2004 (5) sec 223 Referred to. Para 14 D
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
} . No. 737 of 2007
->I
From the final Judgment arid Order dated 18.10.2006 of
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crimi-
E
nal Appeal No. 505-SB of 2000
Mahabir Singh, Rakesh Dahiya and D. Mahesh Babu for
the Appellant.

Kuldip Singh and R.K. Pandey for the Respondents.
F
-- -I The Judgment of.the Court was delivered by

DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. The present
appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
18.10.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 505-SB of 2000, whereby G
,.,.. the High Court dismissed the. appeal filed by Hardip Singh
and upheld the conviction and the sentence passed against
him under the provisions of Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Act'). H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A 2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 20.8.1997 when
Inspector Jarnail Singh (examined as PW 5 in the trial), along
with SI Sukhwinder Singh and other police officials were
standing on a drain bridge falling within the jurisdiction of
village Chamairi, a truck bearing registration No. DIG 4615
. s being driven by Sri lnder Masih was seen coming from Ajnala
side; when the truck was stopped. Hardip Singh, the present
appellant, was s_een sitting by the side of
the driver, in the
said truck. Meanwhile one Major Singh, who was examined
as one of the witnesses in the trial also reached there on a
l
c bicycle and upon reaching tlie- place he alighted from the r
bicycle and joined the police party. Immediately t~ereafter I
(.
Inspector Jarnail Singh sent a wireless message to SS Mann, r
Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW 4), requesting him to
reach the place of occurrence, who after receiving the message
D immediately reached at the place of occurrence.
Thereafter consent memos (Ex. PB & PC) were prepared
to show compl,iance of Section 50 ·of the Act, which were
signed/thumb marked by th,e. appellant and attested .by the
witnesses including PW 4. On the instruction of PW 4, the
E DSP, Inspector Jarnail Singh conducted search of-the appellant
Hardip ,Singh and upon such se.arch one bag in the right hand
of Hardip Singh was found and on search of the sai.d bag, it
a
was found to contain opium wrapped in glazed paper. The
.aforesaid opium, thereaft~r was weighed and. on such weighing
F it was found that there was total of 7 Kgs of opium. out of
a
which 250 gms of opium was taken as sample in one '·parcel
and the remaining quantity of opium being 6.750 Kgs. was
, put in another parcel. After preparing two separ~te parcels,
the same were _sealed with the seals bearing inscriptions 'SSM'
G and 'JS' of SS Mann, DSP and lnspec~or Jarnail .Singh
respectively. The sealed parcels were taken into posse~ion
vide recovery memo, Ex. PD, attested· by the witnesses.
Thereafter the search of the driver, namely, lnder Masih
· was also conducted;· in whose possession also 3 kgs. of opium
H.: was found, ,,f~~ w~fh 1 tyvo.·parcels were made out, one of 250
) .. ·.
~ . ·'
...... HARDIP SINGH v.. STATE OF PUNJAB 317
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA,. J.]

gms. and the other of 2.750 kgs. The said parcels were sealed A
and were taken· into posse&sion vide recovery memo, Ex. PE,
attested by the. same witnesses. From the personal search of
Hardip Singh ten currency notes of the denomination of Rs.
10/- were recovered. These were- also taken into possession
by making out a memo, Ex. PH. Similarly, the truck bearing s
No. orG ·4615 was also taken into possession vide memo,
Ex. PJ. Ruqqa, Ex. -PK, was sent on the basis of which First
Information Report (Ex. PK/1) was recorded. A rough site-
plan was also ~repared at the spot. Thereafter, the present
appellant along with lnder Masih- and the case property was c
produced before Inspector Baldev Singh, the then Station
House Officer (SHO), Police Station Ajnala, who verified the
invest~gation and kept the said articles in his possession. On
30.9.1997 he sent the two parcels· of sample for getting the · i .

same deposited in the office of the Chemical Exam~ner, .
0
Amritsar through ASI Surinder Singh (PW-3). As per the report
of the Analyst, the contents.of the sample parcels were found
to be of opium. On completion of the investigation a ~harge
· sheet was fil~d under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act.
3. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate,· Ajnala E
committed the case for trial to the learned 'court of Sessions
Judge. Under order dated 4.3.1998, the le~rned Sessions
Judge, Amritsar framed charges against both the accusea
under the provisions of Section 18 ·of the Act to which they
pleaded not guilty and pleaded for trial. F
· 4. The prosecution examined altogether four witnesses
whereas appellant Hardip Singh examined five defense
witnesses. The report of the chemical examiner was tendered
.. in evidence. The appellant and the other accused were also
examined under ·Section 313 of the Code of Criminal G
Procedure, 1973.
5. On completion of the trial, the learned Addi. Sessions
Judge heard the arguments and thereafter passed the
judgment and order convicting both the accused persons H .
~
l

318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

-~...,
A including the present appellant under Section 18 ·of the Act
and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of ten years with rupees one lakh as fine and in default
of payment of tine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a ,\
;
period of two years, which is the minimum sentence provided
B under the Act.
6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order ¥..
-lo-
of conviction and sentence, Hardip Singh, the·present appellant
and the other accused, lnder Masih filed an appeal before the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which was heard and f
c disposed by Judgment and Order dated 18.10.2006. The order ~

of conviction and sentence passed against the present ,;
appellant was maintained and confirmed whereas the order
of conviction against lnder Masih was set aside and he was
acquitted of the charges~ Being aggrieved by the said judgment
D and order the present appeal is filed by Hardip Singh on
which we have heard the learned counsel for the parties who
have taken us through the entire evidence on record.
i
'
7. Mr. Mahabir Singh, the learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant strenuously submitted before us *
E during the course of his arguments that the High Court as also
~
the trial court were not justified in rejecting the defense case,
as the case put up by defense was a probable case and in
that view of the matter benefit of doubt should have been
given to the present appellant. It was also submitted by him
F that one of the accused persons having been acquitted by the
High Court on almost similar facts an order of acquittal should )\t
...)

also have been passed in favour of the present appellant,
particularly, when there was no sufficient evidence on record
for justifying conviction of the present appellant. His next
G submission was that the investigating officer did not comply
with the mandatory provisions of Section 55 of the Act after
effecting recovery from the accused. He also strenuously urged ~-

that the sample having been sent to the analyst for chemical
examination after a time gap of 40 days, the appellant should
H have been acquitted by holding that the entir,e case of the
"
HARDIP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 319
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
.... ·y
prosecution is doubtful. The other submission of the counsel A
was that PW 5 being an interested person bearing grudge
against the appellant and also being the complainant should
not have been made the investigating officer.
8. We may now proceed to examine the aforesaid
submissions of the counsel appearing for the appellant in the B
_.
j
light of the evidence on record and also in the light of the
submissions of the counsel appearing for the respondent, who
strenuously urged that the defense case which was put up by
the appellant was nothing but a got up story, and therefore,
- both the courts below have rightly rejected the same. c
9. The defense story which was put up by the appellant
was that he· had been. falsely implicated by Inspector Jarnail
Singh (PW 5) on account of a grudge that he nourished against
the appellant due to a vehicular accident which occurred on
D
26.7.1997, which was ultimately compromised by a written
apology, Ex. DB. The story was sought to be corroborated
')- ' and strengthened by certain complaints sent to higher ups_,
.,,... Ex. DC and Ex. DD on 18.8.1997 and also a telegram Ex. OF
sent on 19.8.1997 in that regard by Gurdial Singh, the father
of the appellant. The story was further sought to be E
supstantiated by s~ating lhat the mere fact that Jarnail Singh
had allegedly recovered the said opium and also the fact that
he was the investigating officer of the case prima-facie proves
that the appellant has been falsely implicated in· the present ·
criminal case on account of personal grudge against the F
-'
f appellant.
10. We have carefully perused the record in view of the
aforesaid allegations, alleging that the investigating officer: was
nourishing a grudge against the appellant over the vehicular
G
accident which occurred on 26. 7.1997. A perusal of the
document of apology, exhibited as Ex. DB., shows that it carries
the signatures of various persons including Gurdial Singh (OW
3) and Harjap Singh (OW 5) but the signature of Jarnail Singh
(PW 5), the investigating officer of the case was not appearing
H
,r
'

320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

':( >
A in the said document. PW 5 was also exar:nined and cross
examined at length but not a single question was lJUt to him
..
about the execution of the aforesaid document of apology. No
suggestion was. giv,en to him that the sctid dpcument was ·
executed in his presence and that he was also a consenting
B party to the said document of apology. Therefore, the l~arned
trial court as also the High Court were justified in raising doubt y ..
about the genuineness of the said d"efense case. A document .,.
can always be crea~ed falsely by obtaining signatures of few
persons but the said document when produced in evidence .
I
c must be· able to stand the test of genuineness .. In our
considered opinion the said document is a doubtful document
and the genuineness of the same could not be proved by the.
appellant since he had failed to bring it to the notice of PW
5, during his cross examin,ation, the fact that the same was
executed in his presence and with his consent.
D
11.So far as the complaints, Ex. DC and Ex. DD,
allegedly sent are concerned, the same are produced by ~
Gurdial Singh, the father of the ·appellant, only during the course
of his examination. Whether or nor such complaints were in *
E fact sent and were received by the addressee should have r
been and were required to be proved in order to establish \>
that they were actually sent and received, as alleged. All the
aforesaid document were also pressed before the trial court
as also the High Court and they have given cogent reasons
F for rejecting the defense version as also for rejecting evidentiary
value of the said documents. Therefore, in our considered ~-
,...
'
opinion the aforesaid defense version, which is put up by the
appellant is not trustworthy and stands rejected.
12. So fa(as the question of delay in sending the samples
G of opium to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) is
concerned, the same in our opinion has no consequence for
,..;;..
the fact that the recovery of the said sample from the
possession of the appellant stands proved <;nd established
by cogent and reliable evidence led in the trial. PW 5 has
..
H categorically stated and asserted about the recovery of opium.
HARDIP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 321

--
(
y
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

from the possession of the appellant, which fact is also
corroborated by a higher officer, namely, SS Mann, DSP who
was als~ examined at length during the trial. The said recovery
A

was effected in the presence of the saiCl SS Mann, D~p, as
senior police officer, who ctlso put his seal on the said parcels
, '
of opium. The then Station House Officer, Inspector Baldev B
.';
Singh, who was examined as PW 1, was posted at Police
-f' Station Ajnala on the date of occurrence. He received the
said samples of opium along with case material, being produced
before him by PW 5. It has come on evidence that Inspector
Baldev Singh kept the entire case property with him till it was c
deposited in the office of the Chemical Examiner, Amritsar on
30.9.1997 through ASI Surinder Singh, (PW-3). It has also come
on evidence that till the date the parcels of sample were
received by the Chemical Examiner, the seal put on the said
parcels was intact. That itself proves and establishes that there -
D
was no tampering with the aforesaid seanrrthe sample at any
stage and the sample received by the analyst for chemical"
}
examination contained the same opium which was recovered
~
from the possession of the appellant. In that view of the matter,
delay of about 40 days in sending the samples did not and
could not have caused any prejudice to t~e_ _appellant. The E
aforesaid contention, therefore, also stand~ rejected.
13. The contention of Mr. Singh that Section 55 of the
Act, which is a mandatory provision, was violated is also found
-- to be without merit in the light of the decision of this Court in F
~ y Kamai/ Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(2000) 7 SCC 632] relied
by him in order to buttress his argument, wherein, a similar
contention was raised ttiat after the seizure the goods were
sent to the Superintendent, Central Narcotics Bureau, Kata,
who, as per law, was in charge of a police station but had not
G
affixed his seal on the articles and the samples, and therefore
the whole of the procedure followed became illegal, entitling
the appellant to be acquitted. In the light of the aforesaid
submissions, the Supreme Court proceeded to hold that with
the application of Section 51 read with Sections 52 and 53,
H
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 $.C.R.

A the officer required to affix the seal etc., under Section 55,
would be "the officer in charge of the nearest police station"
as distinguishable from an officer in charge of a police station
empowered under Section 53. It was also held that if the
arrested person and the seized articles are forwarded under
· B Section 52(3)(b) to the officer empowered under Section. 53,
the compliance with Section 55 cannot be insisted upon. The
Supreme Court further held in the said case that keeping in
view the multifarious activities and the duties cast upon the
offi<ter in charge of the police station under the Code of
c Criminal Procedure and he being apparently busy with the
duties under the Code, the officers mentioned in Section 53
of the Act have been mandated to take action for disposal of
the seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances by
filing an application which, when filed, has to be allowed by
the Magistrate as soon as may be.
0
The appellant has also failed to show any prejudice
caused to him for not putting the seal in the sample by the
officer-in-charge of the police station. PW 5 has categ.orically
stated that on reaching the Police Station, Ajnala, he handed
E over the case property with the seals intact to the officer-in-
charge of the said police station, who was examined in the
trial as PW 1. PW 1 in is deposition has also stated that
Inspector Jarnail Singh produced before him the case property
and sample on 20.8.1997 with seals intact. He has also stated
F that so long the said articles .remained in his custody and -
possession, the same were not tampered with. In the light of
aforesaid nature of evidence on record, no prejudice is caused
to the appellant on that count.
In the case of Ouseph v. State of Kera/a, [(2004) 10
G SCC 647] it was held by this Court that under the provfsions
of Section 55 of the Act, the requirement may not be
mandatory. However in that case in view of peculiar facts of-
the case and as the contraband articles were kept in totally
unsealed condition for near about two months it was held that
H the same creates doubt.
HARDIP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 323

... l
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
14. As far as the submission that as Inspector Jarnail
Singh was the complainant he should not have been made
A

the investigating officer is concerned we may make reference
to the decision of this Court in State v. V Jayapaul, [(2004)
5 sec 223], wherein it was held as under:
"We find no principle or binding authority to hold that the B
~
moment the competent police officer, on the basis of
-f
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 c
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 by the High Court,
that whenever a police officer proceeds to investigate after D
registering the FIR on his own, the investigation would
)-
necessarily be unfair or biased"

-+- Concurring with the Courts below we have already held
that the version of the defense is nothing more than a got up
story of his own whims and caprices, thus in the facts and E
circumstances of the present case the question of bias does
not arise. Sri Jarnail Singh made the recoveries of the opium
and seized the same and therefore, he was rightly made the
Investigating Officer iii the case. The defense case which is

- 'f.
found to be a got up story was soughrto be made out only
during the trial by which time investigation was complete. This
contention therefore is also found to be without merit.
15. In view of the aforesaid observations and findings
F

recorded by us, we find no merit in the appeal, which is
G
accordingly dismissed. The appellant, who is in the custody,
"-"' shall serve the remaining sentence, in accordance with law.
N.J. Appeal dismissed.

H