S. JEEVANANTHAMversusTHE STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TN

                            S. JEEVANANTHAM                                      A
                                      v.
            THE STATE 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 ofHaryana, [1996) 11 SCC 709, distinguished.
                                                                                 F,
      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.
                                                                                 G
     T.N. Singh, Shiam Narain Singh, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Mrs. B. Sunita
Rao and Shakil Ahmed for the Appellant.

     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 ofHaryana, (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 :

                   "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
H
         S. JEEVANANTHAM v. STATFTHROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TN            609
        only by assailed on the ground of bias or real likelihood of bias on        A
        the part of the 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."

      In the instant case, PW-8 conducted the search and recovered the              B
contraband article and registered the case and the article seized from the
appellant was narcotic drug and the counsel for the appellant could not point
out any circumstances by which the investigation caused prejudice or was
biased against the appellant. PW-8 in his official capacity gave the information,
registered the case as part of his official duty and later investigated the case    C
and filed charge-sheet. He was not in any way personally interested in the
case. We are unable to find any sort of bias in the process of investigation.

     The appellants have been rightly convicted by the Special J~dge and
the High Court was also justified in confirming the conviction and sentence.
These appeals are without any merit and are accordingly dismissing.

RP.                                                         Appeals dismissed.