Complainant-led investigation vitiates NDPS prosecution; conviction set aside because fairness and impartiality were compromised.

A conviction under the NDPS Act was set aside because the complainant himself substantially carried out the investigation, including arrest, seizure, sampling and examination of witnesses. The Court applied the principle that investigation must be conducted by a person other than the complainant to maintain fairness and impartiality, and found that this defect vitiated the proceeding. Additional contradictions in the evidence regarding the place and manner of arrest strengthened the doubt about the prosecution case. On that basis, the conviction and sentence could not be sustained and the accused was acquitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be sustained when the complainant himself substantially conducted the investigation, including arrest, seizure, sampling and examination of witnesses.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the informant who lodged the report also apprehended the accused, prepared the seizure list, took samples of the seized articles, and examined the seizure witnesses and the accused, while the formal investigating officer only sent the samples for forensic examination and submitted the charge-sheet. Relying on the settled principle that investigation should be conducted by a person other than the complainant to ensure a fair and impartial inquiry, the Court held that such conduct created serious infirmity and vitiated the proceeding. The contradictions in the evidence on the place and manner of arrest further reinforced the doubt about the prosecution case.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence could not be sustained and were set aside; the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

---