The main legal point established in the judgment is that the investigation could only be assailed on the ground of bias or real likelihood of bias on the part of the Investigating Officer, highlighting the importance of fair investigation as the foundation of a fair trial and the need to prevent abuse of powers by the police.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is the 2nd accused facing trial in C.C. No. 152 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchengodu for offence under Section 9 (B) (1-b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1884.

2. The suo motu First Information Report by Mr.Paulraj, the Special Sub-Inspector of Police (SSI), Molasi, came to be registered on 08.07.2015 at 10.30 a.m. which states that based on information that illegal poaching of fish using explosive is carried on the river side behind the Muniappan Temple, the team of Police led by the Special Sub Inspector went to the spot for patrolling. On seeing the Police team, two persons tried to flee away from the place. The patrol team surrounded them and apprehended. On enquiry, they confessed that they are engaged in poaching of fish using explosive cartridges Celari-11 (SUN 90), ED -10 and OD-3, without using traditional nets. From them, the explosives were recovered at 09.00 hours under mahazar witnessed by K. Periyasami and K. Kamaraj, both Senior Grade Police Constables from the patrol team.

3. The investigation taken up by the said Special Sub Inspector, who registered the case. On completion of investigation, Final Report filed against these two persons and the same was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchengodu. The annexure to the Final Report indicates the prosecution has proposed to examine 5 witnesses, which includes the Special Sub Inspector, who is the informant as well the Investigation Officer, the two Senior Grade-I, Police Constables of the patrol team, who signed the Seizure Mahazar and the two independent witnesses for the preparation of Observation Mahazar.

4. In the petition to quash, it is specifically pleaded that the petitioner is running a Tiffin shop on the road side. The case is foisted against him by the Special Sub Inspector Mr. Paulraj for not giving momool to run the road side tiffin shop. The said Special Sub Inspector, who as informant registered the First Information Report, investigated the case and filed the Final Report. The said act is contrary to the principle of fair trial enshrined in the Constitution of India as one of the fundamental right.

5. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) relying upon the judgment in Mukesh Singh vs. State (Narcotic Branch of New Delhi), (2020) 10 SCC 120 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court consisting of the Hon’ble Five Judges, submitted that earlier the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab, 2018 (17) SCC 627 held, in case the investigation is conducted by the police officer, who himself is the complainant, the trial is vitiated and the accused is entitled to acquittal. Contrary to this view, there were line of judgments, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Investigating Officer and the complainant being the same person, does not vitiate the investigation. In view of conflicting views expressed, the correctness of Mukesh Singh judgment was doubted by a subsequent Bench of equal strength and therefore, the matter was referred to the Larger Bench consisting of the Hon’ble Three Judges. The Hon’ble Three Judges Bench thought fit the issue is to be settled by the Bench consisting of 5 Judges. Thus, when the matter placed before the Bench consisting of 5 Judges, the Hon’ble Supreme Court tracing the law on this matter, held that there is no bar against the informant police officer to investigate the case. Such investigation could only be assailed on the ground of bias or real likelihood of bias on the part of the Investigating Officer. Therefore, on the sole ground that the informant and the Investigating Officer are one and the same person, the accused is not entitled to acquittal.

6. As far as the issue, whether the Informant can also investigate the case, the decision in Mohan Lal case espoused one school of thought which believe that in a criminal prosecution, it will not be in consonance with the principles of justice, fair play and fair investigation,