Case: Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State Of Meghalaya

the spot; (2) ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case; (3) discovery and arrest of the suspected offender; (4) collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence which may consist of - (a) the examination of various persons (including the accused) and the reduction of their statements into writing, if the officer thinks fit, (b) the search of places of seizure of things considered necessary for the investigation and to be produced at the trial; and (5) formation of the opinion as to whether on the material collected there is a case to place the accused before a magistrate for trial and, if so, taking the necessary steps for the same by the filling of a charge-sheet under Section 173." (vide H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali, AIR 1959 SC 707 ). 11. All the above duties are conferred by the statute on the police and they shall be carried out as they are statutory duties. The sublime idea behind formulating such steps for conducting investigation is to enable the statutory authority to independently carry out the investigation without being influenced by any of the interested parties. Investigation must not only be fair but impartial and the conclusion reached by them should be unbiased. 12. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court had pointed to that object of the statutory investigation in re Muddamma Malla Reddy, 1954 Crl. L.J. 167 through the following observations : "The investigating police are primarily the guardians of the liberty of innocent persons. A heavy responsibility devolves on them of seeing that innocent persons are not charged on irresponsible and false implication. There is a duty cast on the investigating police to scrutinize a first complaint in which number of persons are implicated with rigorous care and to refrain from building up a case on its basis unless satisfied of its truth." 13. In Sirajjuddin v. State of Madras, 1970(3) SCR 931 this Court said thus, after referring to various provisions in the Code dealing with investigation : "All the above provisions of the Code are aimed at securing a fair investigation into the facts and circumstances of the criminal case; however serious the crime and howsoever incriminating the circumstances may be against a person supposed to be guilty of a crime the Code of Criminal Procedure aims at securing a conviction if it can be had by the use of utmost fairness on the part of the officers investigating the crime before the lodging of a charge-sheet. Clearly the idea is that no one should be put to the harassment of a criminal trial unless there are good and substantial reasons for holding it." 14. The said observations were followed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Gurcharandas Chadha, 1980(1) SCC 250. 15. The Code does not recognise private investigating agency. If any person is interested in hiring any such private agency, he may do so at his own risk and cost, but such investigation would not be regarded as investigation made under law. Any evidence collected in such private investigation and any conclusion reached by such investigators cannot be presented by Public Prosecutor in any trial. Of course it may be possible for the defence to present such evidence. In this context, we may refer to a recent decision of this Court R. Sarala v. T.S. Velu, 2000(2) RCR (Crl.) 637 : 2000(4) SCC 459. This Court said that even a Public Prosecutor cannot be officially involved during the stage of investigation. The following observations made by this Court in the said decision will be useful : "Investigation and prosecution are two different facets in the administration of criminal justice. The role of a Public Prosecutor is inside the Court, whereas investigation is outside the Court. Normally the role of a Public Prosecutor commences after the investigating agency presents the case in the Court on culmination of investigation. Its exception is that the Public Prosecutor may have to deal with bail applications moved by the parties concerned at any stage. Involving the Public Prosecutor in investigation is injudicious as well as pernicious in law. At any rate no investigating agency can be compelled to seek the opinion of a Public Prosecutor under the orders of the Court." 16. The above discussion was made for emphasising the need for official investigation to be totally extricated from any extraneous influence. The police investigation should necessarily be with the fund supplied by the State. It may be possible for a rich complainant to supply any amount of fund to the police for conducting investigation into his complaint. But a poor man cannot afford to supply any financial assistance to the police. It is an acknowledged reality that he who pays the piper calls the tune. So he would call the shots. Its corollary is that somebody who incurs the cost of anything would normally secure its control also. In our constitutional scheme, the police and other statutory investigating agency cannot be allowed to be hackneyed by those who can afford it. All complaints shall be investigated with equal alacrity and with equal fairness irrespective of the financial capacity of the person lodging the complaint.17. Financial crunch of any State treasury is no justification for allowing a private party to supply funds to the police for conducting such investigation. Augmentation of the fiscal resources of the State for meeting the expenses needed for such investigations is the look out of the executive. Failure to do it is no premise for directing a complainant to supply funds to the investigating officer. Such funding by interested private parties would vitiate the investigation contemplated in the Code. A vitiated investigation is the precursor for miscarriage of criminal justice. Hence any attempt, to create a precedent permitting private parties to supply financial assistance to the police for conducting investigation, should be nipped in the bud itself. No such precedent can secure judicial imprimatur.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]16. The above discussion was made for emphasising the need for official investigation to be totally extricated from any extraneous influence. The police investigation should necessarily be with the fund supplied by the State. It may be possible for a rich complainant to supply any amount of fund to the police for conducting investigation into his complaint. But a poor man cannot afford to supply any financial assistance to the police. It is an acknowledged reality that he who pays the piper calls the tune. So he would call the shots. Its corollary is that somebody who incurs the cost of anything would normally secure its control also. In our constitutional scheme, the police and other statutory investigating agency cannot be allowed to be hackneyed by those who can afford it. All complaints shall be investigated with equal alacrity and with equal fairness irrespective of the financial capacity of the person lodging the complaint.17. Financial crunch of any State treasury is no justification for allowing a private party to supply funds to the police for conducting such investigation. Augmentation of the fiscal resources of the State for meeting the expenses needed for such investigations is the look out of the executive. Failure to do it is no premise for directing a complainant to supply funds to the investigating officer. Such funding by interested private parties would vitiate the investigation contemplated in the Code. A vitiated investigation is the precursor for miscarriage of criminal justice. Hence any attempt, to create a precedent permitting private parties to supply financial assistance to the police for conducting investigation, should be nipped in the bud itself. No such precedent can secure judicial imprimatur.