The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for fair and impartial investigation, particularly in cases involving the NDPS Act, and the potential violation of the accused's rights when the investigating officer is also the complainant.

JUDGMENT :

Subodh Abhyankar, J.

This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment dated 19/10/2011 passed by the Special Judge under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "NDPS Act"), Bhopal, in Special Criminal Case No.3/2011, whereby the present appellant has been convicted under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(2) (b) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default clause.

2. In brief the facts of the case are that on 22.1.2011, at around 8:15 PM, Assistant Sub Inspector K.B. Sharma (PW-8) of Police Station GRP Bhopal received an information from an informant (Mukhbir) that two persons have disembarked from Dakshin Express which came at Platform No.3 and the suitcase and bag which they are carrying Ganja (Canabis) which they intend to sell somewhere. After recording the information received from the informant (Mukhbir) in the Rojnamcha vide Ex.P-25 and dispatching the same vide P-28, the said Assistant Sub Inspector K.B. Sharma (PW-8) proceeded to the spot i.e. the platform No.3 where the present appellant was allegedly sitting along with contraband. The accused was detained and after completing the formalities under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act a notice was issued to him and was examined through Assistant Sub Inspector PW-8 K.B. Sharma himself. Although from the person of accused Mangaraj no contraband was found, however when his suitcase and bag were searched, from his bag, 12 kg Ganja and from his suitcase 18 kg ganja was recovered vide Ex.P-7 and thus in all 30 kg ganja was found from the conscious possession of the appellant. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the present appellant and the learned Judge of the trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, has convicted the appellant as aforesaid vide judgment dated 19.10.2011, which is under challenge before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appeal has been preferred on two grounds, firstly on the ground that the complainant in the present case PW-8 K.B. Sharma is the person who has conducted the entire investigation which has vitiated the entire trial and secondly, in the present case, there is no compliance of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. In support of his contention regarding investigating officer being the author of FIR Ex.P/31, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal Vs. State of Punjab, 2018 SCC OnLine(SC) 974 in Criminal Appeal No.1880/2011 on 16.8.2018, as also in the case of Megha Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 709.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the appellant and has submitted that the appellant has rightly been convicted by the learned Judge of the trial Court. It is further submitted that this being a case under NDPS Act and all the procedural formalities having been followed as provided under the NDPS Act, no case for interference is made out.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. On perusal of record this Court finds that Assistant Sub Inspector K.B. Sharma (PW-8) is the person, who had initially received the information from the informant (Mukhbir) regarding the appellant carrying the contraband with him and thereafter the entire investigation was conducted by himself only including all the procedural formalities as provided under the NDPS Act and thus it is not in dispute that Assistant Sub Inspector K.B. Sharma (PW-8) is the person who had not only lodged the FIR Ex.P/31 but had also carried out the investigation which fact has also been admitted by him in his statement before the Court.

7. So far as the legal position regarding the investigating officer himself being the complainant is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Me