Case Title:
Mukesh Singh Vs State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi)
Judgment Date:
31.08.2020
Judge(s):
JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
PARTIES:
Petitioner -Mukesh Singh
Respondent -State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi)
ISSUES RAISED
Whether trial in NDPS matters is vitiated & accused become entitled to get acquitted merely because the Investigation Officer and the Complainant are the same person.
BRIEF FACTS
- In the case of Mukesh Singh v. State(NCB), a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally resolved the long-standing question of what happens to prosecution when the same officer who was the first informant continues to be the investigating officer, holding that there is no automatic apprehension of bias when the informant and the investigating officer are the same, and such cases would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
- In the case of Mukesh Singh v. State, a two-judge bench questioned the correctness of the decision in the case of Mohan Lal v. State ofPunjab [(2018) 17 SCC 627].
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:Sections 35,42,52,54.
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973: Sections 154,156,157.
ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT
- The Appellants mirrored the observations stated in the Mohan Lal decision, as well as their rationale of bias suspicion. The appellants attempted to apply Sections 42 and 52 of the NDPS Act to their case.
- The appellants argued that the NDPS Act's scheme should be taken into account. Section 54 of the Act establishes a presumption that the accused has committed an offense, putting the onus of evidence on the accused who is found in possession of the material and fails to account for it adequately. As a result, the recovery and possession of the substance is an important aspect of the Act's inquiry.
- On behalf of the appellants, it was also argued that if the accused was found in possession of the prohibited substance, Section 54 created a presumption of commission of the crime, and Section 35 created a presumption of guilty mental state. The cop or raiding team who effectuates the retrieval are witnesses to the stated fact, which would constitute an offense, and as a result, an independent agency/officer must investigate the said element. As a result, in order to preserve the accused's interests, the Act mandates that the fact recovery and inquiry be carried out by separate parties, namely, authorities empowered under Sections 42 and 53.
ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT
Respondents argued that the Court in the Mohan Lal case:
- Ignored Illustration (e) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows the Court to raise a presumption that official acts have been performed regularly; and ignored the principle enunciated in the case.
- Did not address Section 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states that any illegality committed before, during, or after a trial or in any other proceeding will not warrant the reversal of any finding, sentence, or order unless it results in a failure of justice.
- Ignored the rule that if an objection to illegality is not raised at the appropriate time, it is assumed waived.
- Did not consider the notion that malafides must be proven rather than inferred, and that mala fides is of secondary relevance if the trial otherwise reveals flawless evidence.
- Misinterpreted both the NDPS Act's scheme and the principle of reverse burden.
- Failed to recognize the principle that, under the NDPS Act, the investigation is solely reserved for the investigating agency, that the functions of the investigating agency and the judiciary are complementary rather than overlapping, and that interference is warranted only in the case of a clear case of abuse of power, which must be decided on the facts of each case.
The Respondents further argued that a technicality should not be used as the only basis for throwing out a whole investigation and subsequent acquittal; rather, a case should be tried on its merits, because otherwise, many cases with excellent evidence will be thrown out on a technicality.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
The Court emphasized that, under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, the presumption was against the accused. As a result, in circumstances where the prosecution bears the initial burden of proof, the presumption can only be applied after the prosecution has met its initial burden. At this point, it should be noted that the reverse burden is not only found in special statutes such as the NDPS Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act, but is also found in Section 304B of the IPC, which states that all such offenses under the Penal Code must be investigated in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C., and thus the informant can investigate the said offenses himself under Section 157 Cr.P.C. (Para 10.3)
CONCLUSION
- The court made its position clear on the contentious Mohan Lal ruling when it concluded the verdict, declaring:"In each case, the question of bias or prejudice would be determined by the facts and circumstances.”
- As a result, simply because the informant is the investigator, the investigation would not suffer from the vice of unfairness or bias, and hence the accused is not entitled to acquittal based solely on the fact that the informant is the investigator. The situation must be handled on a case-by-case basis.
- A contrary decision of this Court in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627, as well as any other decision holding that the informant cannot be the investigator and that the accused is entitled to acquittal in such a case, are not good law anymore as they have been particularly over ruled in this case.
To know more about NDPS Act, click here
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
