ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.492 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 4(1)(aaa), 4(1)(i) and 14A of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 on the file of the first respondent.

2.The defacto complainant lodged a complaint alleging that on

10.06.2017 at about 10 p.m., when the second respondent/defacto complainant along with other police officials were on duty patrol, they identified a motorcycle and later found that the said vehicle belonged to one Shanmugaraj, namely, the petitioner herein, and found 23 bottles in a box containing 750 ml of white and black whisky. On enquiry, the petitioner said that he had bought the above said liquor bottles for sale from one unknown person. On further investigation, the respondent also seized few bottles of liquor from the petitioner's residence.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the grounds that the case of the prosecution is only on the basis of the suo motu complaint made by the second respondent, who is also the Investigating Officer, who .registered the F.I.R in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police. The second respondent exercised his jurisdiction though he is not competent to do under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. In accordance with the provisions of Section 4(1)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Prohibition and Excise Wing of Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu and as a pro-active disclosure the State Government of Tamil Nadu brought out a manual for information and guidance of the stakeholders and the general public. The point 2.7 of the said manual stated that the Additional Director General of Police (Enforcement) is the head of this unit and he is assisted by the Inspector General of Police (Enforcement), a Superintendent of Police, Central Investigation Unit at Chennai and a Superintendent of Police (Enforcement) each at Chennai, Salem and Madurai. As per the Act, 94 Prohibition Enforcement Wing units functioning in the State headed by the Inspectors of Police are declared as police stations for enforcing the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. Further, in the case on hand, the second respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.492 of 2017, who is not the enforcing officer under the Act.

4.In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India reported in 2018 (4) MLJ (Crl) 244 - [Mohan Lal Vs. The State of Punjab]. It will be useful to extract the relevant portions of the judgment which reads as follows:

“5. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. The primary question for our consideration in the present appeal is, whether in a criminal prosecution, it will be in consonance with the principles of justice, fair play and a fair investigation, if the informant and the investigating officer were to be the same person. In such a case, is it necessary for the accused to demonstrate prejudice, especially under laws such as NDPS Act, carrying a reverse burden of proof.

...................

11. A fair trial to an accused, a constitutional guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution, would be a hollow promise if the investigation in a NDPS case were not to be fair or raises serious questions about its fairness apparent on the face of the investigation. In the nature of the reverse burden of proof, the onus will lie on the prosecution to demonstrate on the face of it that the investigation was fair, judicious with no circumstances that may raise doubts about its veracity. The obligation of proof beyond reasonable doubt will take within its ambit a fair investigation, in absence of which there can be no fair trial. If the investigation itself is unfair, to require the accused to demonstrate prejudice will be fraught with danger vesting arbitrary powers in the police which may well lead to false implication also. Investigation in such a case would then become an empty formality and a farce. Such an interpre