Criminal Procedure Code

Surender v. State of Haryana

2016 SCC OnLine SC 49

Citation: 2016 SCC OnLine SC 49
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 19 January 2016
Bench: V. Gopala Gowda and U.U. Lalit JJ.

Facts

Sub-Inspector Satbir Singh received secret information that Surender was carrying and selling opium.
The information was recorded, and the police intercepted Surender near a village bus stand.
Surender was informed of his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer.
He chose a Gazetted Officer. A Deputy Superintendent of Police reached the spot, and the search was conducted in his presence.
Approximately 1.05 kilograms of opium was recovered from a packet tied around Surender’s stomach.
Satbir Singh initiated the case, participated in the search and also performed important parts of the investigation.
Surender was convicted under Section 18 of the NDPS Act. He argued before the Supreme Court that the investigation was unfair because the police officer who initiated the case had also investigated it.

Issue

Whether an investigation automatically becomes illegal or unfair merely because the police officer who initiated the case also participated in its investigation.
Whether Surender was entitled to acquittal on that ground.

Rule

A criminal investigation must be fair, impartial and free from any real likelihood of bias.
In Megha Singh v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court disapproved of a complainant police officer investigating his own complaint, particularly where the prosecution depended almost entirely on that officer’s unsupported testimony.
However, the participation of the informant in the investigation does not automatically nullify every prosecution.
The Court must examine:
the officer’s actual role;
whether other officers independently participated;
whether statutory safeguards were followed;
whether the investigation caused real prejudice to the accused; and
whether the prosecution evidence remains reliable.
The corresponding investigative provisions are now contained mainly in Sections 175, 176 and 180 BNSS.
The later Constitution Bench judgment in Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch) authoritatively confirmed that the informant and investigating officer being the same person does not, by itself, vitiate the investigation. Actual bias or prejudice must be established.

Application

The Supreme Court distinguished Megha Singh on the facts.
In Megha Singh:
the complainant officer substantially controlled the whole case;
there was no satisfactory independent corroboration;
material discrepancies existed in the police evidence; and
the search was not conducted with the same degree of independent supervision.
Surender’s case was materially different.
Satbir Singh did not conduct the personal search entirely on his own authority. Surender was first informed of his statutory option and expressly chose to be searched before a Gazetted Officer.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police came to the spot, was informed about the case and supervised the search.
Other police officers participated in:
witnessing the recovery;
sealing and taking possession of the contraband;
registering the FIR;
verifying the investigation; and
depositing the case property.
The seized substance was also examined by the forensic laboratory and was confirmed to be opium.
Therefore, the prosecution was not based only on the unsupported version of the complainant officer.
The Court found no specific act showing that Satbir Singh had manipulated the investigation or fabricated the recovery.
Surender had raised only a general objection based on the officer’s dual role. He did not establish any actual prejudice or show how the investigation had become unreliable.
The Court therefore refused to create an automatic rule that every investigation conducted partly by the informant police officer must result in acquittal.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld Surender’s conviction.
It held that the principle in Megha Singh did not apply mechanically to every case in which the informant officer also participated in the investigation.
Since the search was supervised by a Gazetted Officer, several officers participated and no actual prejudice was proved, the investigation was not invalid.
The important CrPC principle is that an irregularity concerning the investigating officer’s role must be examined for its actual effect on fairness; it does not automatically destroy the prosecution. ( )