The trial itself would not be vitiated solely on the basis of investigation conducted by the informant himself.

ORDER

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of a Bench consisting of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab [(2018) SCC Online SC 974) to submit that since the investigation in the present case was conducted by the Police Officer who himself was the complainant, the trial was vitiated and as such the petitioner-accused is entitled to acquittal.

2. Para 4 of said judgment in Mohan Lal (Supra) refers to earlier judgments of this Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh [(1999) 6 SCC 172) - judgment by Constitution Bench of this Court, Bhaskar Ramappa Madar and Others v. State of Karnataka [(2009) 11 SCC 690] and Surender Alias Kala v. State of Haryana [(2016) 4 SCC 617] , which cases were relied upon to project the view that investigation would not get vitiated merely because it was conducted by the informant himself.

3. The judgment thereafter referred to cases; Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan [(1976) 1 SCC 15] , Megha Singh v. State of Haryana [(1996) 11 SCC 709] , State by Inspector of Police, Narcotic Intelligence Bureau, Madurai, Tamil Nadu v. Rajangam [(2010) 15 SCC 369] wherein while appreciating evidence on record, the fact that the investigation was conducted by the informant himself, weighed with the Court in ordering acquittal of the accused.

4. In Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan (supra) this Court held that if the complainant himself was the Investigating Officer the case of prosecution would not be free from doubt. In Megha Singh v. State of Haryana (supra) while recording acquittal on that count it was observed that such practice should not be resorted to.

5. In State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (supra) a Constitution Bench of this Court considered the effect of failure to inform a person of his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and whether such failure would result in trial getting vitiated. Para 57(3) of the decision which sets out conclusion in that behalf was as under:-

"57. On the basis of the reasoning and discussion above, the following conclusions arise:

(1).........

(2).........

(3) That a search made by an empowered officer, on prior information, without informing the person of his right that if he so requires, he shall be taken before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate for search and in case he so opts, failure to conduct his search before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, may not vitiate the trial but would render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction and sentence of an accused, where the conviction has been recorded only on the basis of the possession of the illicit article, recovered from his person, during a search conducted in violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act.

6. We may also note the view taken by this Court in State represented by Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption, Tiruchirapally, Tamil Nadu v. V. Jayapaul [(2004) 5 SCC 223] to the following effect:

6. Though there is no such statutory bar the premise on which the High Court quashed the proceedings was that the investigation by the same officer who 'lodged' the FIR would prejudice the accused inasmuch as the investigating officer cannot be expected to act fairly and objectively. We find no principle or binding authority to hold that the moment the competent police officer, on the basis of information received, makes out an FIR incorporating his name as the informant, he forfeits his right to investigate. If at all, such investigation could only be assailed on the ground of bias or real likelihood of bias on the part of the investigating officer. The question of bias would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and it is not proper to lay down a broad and unqualified proposition, in the manner in which it has been done by the High Court, that whenever a police officer proceeds to investigate after registering the FIR on his own, the investigation would necessa