Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a police officer who records the first information report on the basis of information received is disqualified from investigating the cognizable offence and submitting the final report.
Analysis: Sections 154, 156 and 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 permit a police officer in charge of a police station to record information relating to a cognizable offence and to investigate such offence either on information or otherwise. The mere fact that the same officer recorded the FIR after receiving discreet information does not, by itself, create a statutory bar against investigation. Any challenge to such investigation must rest on specific facts showing bias or a real likelihood of bias; no broad rule can be laid down that investigation by the informant officer is necessarily unfair. The authorities relied upon by the High Court were distinguished on their facts and did not lay down an absolute prohibition.
Conclusion: The police officer was competent to investigate the case, and the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings on the ground that the FIR-recording officer had also conducted the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: An investigation is not vitiated merely because the police officer who records the FIR on information received also conducts the investigation, unless specific circumstances establish bias or a real likelihood of bias.