The Apex Court on 16.08.2018, a day following the Independence Day, upheld justice and fairness by ensuring that ‘’Justice must not only be done, but must appear to be done also’’ in the case of Mohan Lal v the State of Punjab[1]. The appellant was convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 facing rigorous imprisonment and fine followed by a defaulted stipulation.
The facts of the case wheeling around are that the Subs Inspector had lodged an F.I.R. while he was on patrolling duty accompanied by others. Doubts were raised by the witness upon seeing the appellant. After undergoing a thorough search, opium was recovered from the appellant .Later, the appellant was made to face a trial with subsequent conviction.
Contentions were raised from the appellant’s regarding the prosecution’ exclusion of the other witnesses from examination, reasonable doubts occurred regarding the samples not being sent for chemical analysis within 72 hours, there were flaws which included the officer being the informant could not be the investigation officer at the same time, further the narcotics seized were not deposited in the malkhana. In a nutshell, it was contended that the whole investigation was monumentally flawed.
The burning issue in the case was whether principles of justice and fairness along with fair investigation is ensured if the informant and investigating officer is likely to be the same person?
The Apex Court opined that the consent memo in the instant case was signed by one of the witnesses who was illiterate .The sample seized was not even deposited in malkhan neither was an entry made in roznama, nor could the delay of the samples being sent for analysis had been explained. Further, the prosecution failed to provide competent explanation regarding the non-examination of the other witnesses. The recovery memo too had not been signed by accused nor such memo had been prepared while he was present neither any copy of such documents were supplied to him.
As per the NDPS Act, the principle of reverse burden of proof has to be followed as a result, the prosecution’s version could not have been permitted based on mere probabilities .An accused is entitled to a fair trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and if investigation has not been based on fairness that would pose weighty and severe questions. Hence , when in cases when the reverse burden of proof is applicable, the informant himself being the police officer ,while making such allegations , if at the same time is made to investigate on the case, serious speculations tend to arise regarding the fairness and impartiality involved.
Thus, the investigation being conducted by the officer who being an informant himself, resulted in the abortion of justice and fairness to the accused. The Court also added that the same person cannot be the informant as well as the person to investigate. Thus the accused was acquitted and appeal was granted.
[1] Read Judgment here:
[embeddoc url=”https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2010/1075/1075_2010_Judgement_16-Aug-2018.pdf” download=”all”]
The Apex Court on 16.08.2018, a day following the Independence Day, upheld justice and fairness by ensuring that ‘’Justice must not only be done, but must appear to be done also’’ in the case of Mohan Lal v the State of Punjab[1]. The appellant was convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 facing rigorous imprisonment and fine followed by a defaulted stipulation.The facts of the case wheeling around are that the Subs Inspector had lodged an F.I.R. while he was on patrolling duty accompanied by others. Doubts were raised by the witness upon seeing the appellant. After undergoing a thorough search, opium was recovered from the appellant .Later, the appellant was made to face a trial with subsequent conviction.Contentions were raised from the appellant’s regarding the prosecution’ exclusion of the other witnesses from examination, reasonable doubts occurred regarding the samples not being sent for chemical analysis within 72 hours, there were flaws which included the officer being the informant could not be the investigation officer at the same time, further the narcotics seized were not deposited in the malkhana. In a nutshell, it was contended that the whole investigation was monumentally flawed.The burning issue in the case was whether principles of justice and fairness along with fair investigation is ensured if the informant and investigating officer is likely to be the same person?The Apex Court opined that the consent memo in the instant case was signed by one of the witnesses who was illiterate .The sample seized was not even deposited in malkhan neither was an entry made in roznama, nor could the delay of the samples being sent for analysis had been explained. Further, the prosecution failed to provide competent explanation regarding the non-examination of the other witnesses. The recovery memo too had not been signed by accused nor such memo had been prepared while he was present neither any copy of such documents were supplied to him.As per the NDPS Act, the principle of reverse burden of proof has to be followed as a result, the prosecution’s version could not have been permitted based on mere probabilities .An accused is entitled to a fair trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and if investigation has not been based on fairness that would pose weighty and severe questions. Hence , when in cases when the reverse burden of proof is applicable, the informant himself being the police officer ,while making such allegations , if at the same time is made to investigate on the case, serious speculations tend to arise regarding the fairness and impartiality involved.Thus, the investigation being conducted by the officer who being an informant himself, resulted in the abortion of justice and fairness to the accused. The Court also added that the same person cannot be the informant as well as the person to investigate. Thus the accused was acquitted and appeal was granted.[1] Read Judgment here:
