The central legal point established in the judgment is the constitutional right to fair investigation, as a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the court's inherent jurisdiction to ensure impartial and just investigation.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to transfer the investigation of a criminal case to the Central Bureau of Investigation or to any other fair or impartial and independent investigating agency. The petitioner alleges that he is being prosecuted by the State machinery, at the behest of his political opponents, who are governing the State. He alleges that he has been victimized and haunted by involving him in a large number of criminal cases, after his political opponents have taken over the governance in the State.

2. Once the executive, at the highest level, fails to take an action, although, certain glaring facts have come on record, the Constitutional Court is left with no other choice but to intervene and make attempt to redress the grievances. Fair investigation is a constitutional right of the accused/victim, fairness being a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In Babu Bhai Jamuna Dass Patel vs. State of Gujarat, (2010) 4 RCR(Cri) 311, the Supreme Court held that not only fair trial but fair investigation is also a part of the constitutional rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. The Investigating Agency cannot be permitted to conduct the investigation in a tainted and biased manner. In State of Bihar vs. P.P.Sharma, (1991) AIR SC 1260, the Supreme Court held that the investigator must be alive to the mandate of Article 21 and is not empowered to trample upon the personal liberty arbitrarily. In Navinchandra N Majithia vs. State of Meghalaya and others, (2000) AIR SC 3275, held that the investigating agencies are guardians of the liberty of the innocent citizens and therefore, a heavy responsibility devolves upon them that the innocent persons are not charged and they do not suffer false implication.

3. Some facts are required to be noticed. The petitioner is being tried in FIR no.16, dated 04.08.2017, registered under Section 21, 25, 29 61, 85 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, at Police Station SSOC, Amritsar. At present, the case is pending in the court.

4. As per the case of the prosecution, a secret information was received by the members of Special Task Force, that the petitioner along-with certain other are illegally peddling Heroin (contraband), after receiving it from a neighbouring country Pakistan. It is alleged that the petitioner -Balwinder Singh @ Kukku was intercepted on 04.08.2017, when he was travelling in a car. During his personal search, in the presence of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, 1 kg Heroin was recovered. On the disclosure statement of the petitioner, made during his interrogation, a raid was conducted at a room built for tubewell, in the agricultural land of Major Singh. Bohar Singh & Major Singh, were apprehended. On being intensively questioned, they are alleged to have confessed their connection with Pakistani smuggler Aarif and have disclosed that they have been receiving consignments of Heroin (contraband), out of which three packets of 500 grams each, were sold to Balwinder Singh @ Kukku for a sum of Rs.3 lacs. They are also alleged to have disclosed that Heroin has been kept concealed in the land of Bohar Singh, which is beyond the barbed wires, near Batalion no.2, BSF Lakhasinghwala Tent Post Gate no. 205 at India-Pakistan Border. The petitioner, Major Singh & Bohar Singh were taken to the aforesaid place, in the presence of another official of the BSF and from the agricultural land of Bohar Singh, who, with his own hand, dug the earth and got recovered 4 kg 530 grams Heroin (contraband), packed in 8 packets, along-with one pistol 9 mm and 3 magazines 9 mm and 52 live rounds with 9 mm. On conclusion of the investigation, the police report was prepared on 07.01.2018 and presented in the Court.

5. The petitioner as noticed above filed this petition. On 07.02.2018, notice was issued to the respondents and the Sen