Mohan Lal vs The State Of Punjab

2. An  F.I.R.   was   lodged on  03.02.1997 by  PW­1, Chand Singh, Sub­Inspector of Balianwali Police Station, that while on   patrol   duty,   he   was   accompanied   by   Darshan   Singh, Sarpanch   and   Assistant   Sub­Inspector   Balwinder   Singh. The   witness   entertained   doubts   about   the   appellant   upon seeing him.   PW­4, Shri Rajinder N. Dhoke, IPS, a gazetted officer, was called and the appellant was searched, leading to recovery   of   4   kg   of   opium   in   a   bag   carried   by   him.     The consent   memo,   Exhibit­   PB  was  signed   by   Darshan  Singh and PW­1.  The seized opium was separated into a sample of 20 gm. and 3kg 980 gm.  The specimen seal was prepared by PW­1   and   after   use,   the   seal   was   handed   over   to   ASI, Balwinder   Singh.     “Ruqa”   was   prepared   by   PW­1   and forwarded   to   Balianwali   Police   Station.     PW­3,   Assistant Sub­Inspector,   Darshan   Singh   registered   the   formal   F.I.R. and handed over investigation to PW­1.  Upon conclusion of investigation, the appellant was charge­sheeted, put on trial, and convicted.

7.  The presence of a private person in a police vehicle while on patrol duty, the individual being an illiterate, but having signed   the   consent   memo   were   surely   matters   for investigation.  Similarly, why the signature of ASI Balwinder Singh or PW­4 was not obtained on the consent memo was again a subject matter of investigation.   The veracity of the sample seal handed over to ASI Balwinder Singh was likewise a matter for investigation as to whether it was the same as 6 the seal on the case property retained in his private custody by PW­1 and that sent for chemical analysis.   The mere fact that   there   may   have   been   a   seal   cannot   lead   to   any presumption in absence of the examination of ASI Balwinder Singh.   Likewise,  it was also a subject of investigation why PW­1   did   not   make   any   roznamcha   entry   of   the   seized property and  the  reason why  he retained the case property and sample in his private custody in a rented house despite the   availability   of   a   malkhana.     The   delay   in   sending   the sample for chemical analysis, in the facts and circumstances of the case was again a matter for investigation.     Had the investigator been different from the complainant, the issues for   consideration   may   have   been   entirely   different.     The appellant   in   his   defence   under   Section   313   Cr.P.C.   had specifically   taken   a   plea   of   false   implication   by   PW­1   on account of a dispute with regard to purchase of a tractor.

with   the   police   in   matters   relating   to   the   NDPS   Act   and similar   laws   carrying   a   reverse   burden   of   proof.     An investigation is a systemic collection of facts for the purpose of describing what occurred and explaining why it occurred. The word systemic suggests that it is more than a whimsical process. An investigator will collect the facts relating to the incident under investigation.  The fact is a mere information and is not synonymous with the truth.     Kader  (supra) is, therefore,   overruled.     We   approve   the   view   taken   in Naushad (supra).

26. Resultantly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed.   The prosecution is held to be vitiated because of the infraction of the   constitutional   guarantee   of   a   fair   investigation.   The appellant   is   directed   to   be   set   at   liberty   forthwith   unless wanted in any other case.