HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL R.C. No.110 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner/accused was convicted for offence under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act and was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in C.C.No. 385 of 2002, by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Sulthanabad, and the said conviction and sentence were confirmed by the I-Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, in Criminal Appeal No.93 of 2004. It is alleged that on 30.07.2002, when the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pothkapalli Police Station with staff was conducting vehicle checking at Gumpula village near Shangonda Railway Gate, the accused was going on TVS champ motor cycle which has no number plate along with a lorry tube containing 60 litres of gudumba (illicitly distilled liquor). Plea of the accused is one of total denial. During trial, the Sub-Inspector of Police was examined as P.W.4, one police constable was examined as P.W.3 and mediators for seizure of contraband were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2. The contraband was stated to have been seized by the police under cover of Ex.P3-panchanama, in the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.2 turned hostile to the prosecution. P.W.1 supported the prosecution version in his examination-in-chief, but turned hostile to the prosecution in cross-examination, which was conducted after long lapse of time. It is evident that P.W.1 was won over by the accused, after his examination-in-chief in the trial Court. Therefore, the courts below rightly did not place any reliance on that part of cross-examination of P.W.1. On facts, having regard to evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4, this court is of the opinion that findings on facts recorded by the courts below are unassailable. In spite of it, there is a legal snag in this case. P.W.4 is the Police Officer who detected the offence during vehicle search. On the basis of Ex.P3-panchanama, it is P.W.4 who himself registered the case suo motu and issued Ex.P4-F.I.R. Again it is P.W.4, who pursued investigation in this case by way of sending sample packet for chemical analysis, destroying remaining contraband as per law, sending M.O.1-unspent portion of the sample and M.O.2-TVS Champ motorcycle to the court. After investigation, it is P.W.4, who filed charge sheet in the trial Court. Thus, P.W.4 is the detector, first informant, Police Officer who registered the case, investigated into the case and, ultimately, filed charge sheet/final report before the Magistrate. P.W.4 being the person who detected the offence should have disassociated himself from the investigation; and the investigation should have been taken up by another Police Officer than P.W.4. P.W.4 who detected the offence, ultimately, filed charge sheet in court. This is contrary to criminal procedure as well as fairness in investigation. The petitioner’s counsel placed reliance on Podduturi Satyam Reddy vs. State of A.P.[1] on this aspect. In that decision, this court, after referring decision of Patna High Court, held that the Police Officer who is informant, is in the nature of the complainant and so cannot take up investigation and file charge sheet. Thus, investigation of this case is vitiated and, ultimately, charge sheet filed by P.W.4 in the present case is invalid. Both the courts below did not look into this legal aspect of the case. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below against the petitioner/accused and acquitting him. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 26.03.2010 v v [1] 2001 (1) ALT (Cri) 66