Complainant-investigator objection failed where the investigation was found fair and no prejudice was shown.

A conviction was not set aside merely because the investigating officer was also the complainant, since the Court found that the search was conducted in the presence of and under the instructions of a Gazetted Officer and that the investigation was not carried out by one officer alone. The earlier authorities cited were distinguished on their facts, and no prejudice or unfairness in the investigation was shown. The challenge based on defective investigation therefore failed, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction was vitiated because the investigating officer was also the complainant.

Analysis: The Court held that the principle barring a complainant from investigating the case was not attracted on the facts. The search had been conducted in the presence of and under the instructions of a Gazetted Officer, and the material on record showed that the investigation was not carried out by one officer alone. The earlier decisions relied upon were distinguished on their facts, and no prejudice or lack of fairness in the investigation was shown.

Conclusion: The challenge to the conviction on the ground of defective investigation failed and the contention was rejected against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction is not liable to be set aside merely because the complainant participated in the investigation, where the search and investigation were otherwise conducted fairly and the facts do not disclose prejudice or sole reliance on such officer.

---