Impartial investigation principle: same officer's dual role created infirmity, but the acquittal was upheld.

A complainant, arresting or search officer should not ordinarily investigate the same case because fairness and impartiality in investigation are essential, and such overlap can create legitimate doubt about objectivity. Applying this settled principle, the Court noted that where the same officer initiated the case and also conducted the investigation, the inquiry suffers from a serious infirmity. On the facts stated, however, the objection to the investigation was rejected and the High Court's acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the officer who registered the crime and participated in the search could also investigate the case, and whether such investigation vitiated the prosecution.

Analysis: The Court applied the principle that investigation should be fair and impartial and that a complainant or arresting officer should not ordinarily conduct the investigation of the same case, as that may create a legitimate doubt about objectivity. Referring to the settled view in earlier decisions, the Court held that where the same officer was involved in initiating the case and carrying out the investigation, the investigation suffers from a serious infirmity.

Conclusion: The objection to the investigation was rejected, and the High Court's acquittal was upheld.

---