Conflicting roles of Investigating Officer and complainant lead to acquittal

The court concluded that the investigation and subsequent trial were vitiated due to the conflict of roles played by the Investigating Officer (IO) also being the complainant. Relying on the principles from a Supreme Court judgment, the court acquitted the appellant of the charges, ordering her immediate release unless needed for another case. The court emphasized the necessity of separate roles for the informant and the IO to ensure a fair investigation and trial.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the investigation and subsequent prosecution are vitiated if the complainant is also the Investigating Officer (IO).
2. Applicability of the Supreme Court judgment in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 974.
3. Determination of the actual Investigating Officer in the case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the investigation and subsequent prosecution are vitiated if the complainant is also the Investigating Officer (IO):

The appellant challenged her conviction and sentence under Section 21(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), on the ground that the complainant, Ms. Anju Singh, was also the Investigating Officer (IO). The appellant argued that this dual role vitiated the entire proceedings. The court examined the facts and noted that Ms. Anju Singh, who filed the complaint, was indeed the IO. The court emphasized that the Supreme Court in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab had ruled that such a practice is inherently prejudicial and violates principles of fair investigation and trial.

2. Applicability of the Supreme Court judgment in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 974:

The appellant relied on Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, where the Supreme Court held that the investigation is vitiated if the informant and the IO are the same person. The respondent's counsel, Mr. Satish Aggarwala, argued that Mohan Lal distinguished between an "informant" and a "complainant" and that in cases investigated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), the seizing officer being the complainant did not vitiate the proceedings. However, the court found that Mohan Lal applies to situations where the IO is also the complainant or the officer conducting the search, thereby covering the present case. The court reiterated that the Supreme Court's decision mandates that the informant and the IO must not be the same person to ensure a fair investigation.

3. Determination of the actual Investigating Officer in the case:

The respondent's written submissions claimed that the IO was PW-4 Ramesh Kumar, not PW-1 Anju Singh. However, the court found this argument unconvincing and unsupported by evidence. The court noted that no such argument was presented during oral submissions and that the evidence clearly indicated that PW-1 Anju Singh was the IO. This was corroborated by the testimony of PW-4 Ramesh Kumar, who confirmed that the report under Section 157 of the NDPS Act was submitted by the IO, PW-1 Anju Singh.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the investigation and subsequent trial were vitiated due to the conflict of roles played by PW-1 Anju Singh as both the complainant and the IO. This conclusion was based on the principles laid down in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, which necessitates separate roles for the informant and the IO to ensure a fair investigation and trial. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted of the charges, and the appeal was allowed. The court ordered the immediate release of the appellant unless she was required in connection with any other case. The trial court record was directed to be sent back with a copy of the judgment, and intimation was to be sent to the Superintendent of Tihar Jail.

---