An investigation in a criminal case must be fair, with the roles of informant and investigator kept separate to uphold the rights to a fair trial.

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition is filed challenging the FIR registered in Crime No. 217 of 2024 on the file of the respondent registered for the offence under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Gaming and Police Laws Act , 1930.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on inspection of the petitioner's recreation club which is running in the name and style of Chill Out Recreation Club, on 09.11.2024, while in the petitioner's club, several persons were playing cards and also recovered a sum of Rs.3,270/-, red colour tokens, orange colour tokens and also blue colour tokens. The petitioner involved in the club activity and running a club in the name and style of Chill Out Recreation Club and there are various members involved themselves in various activities inside the club by playing games like Chess, Carom Board, Table Tennis, playing Cards and rummy, as per law and procedure.

3. Infact, the respondent periodically visited the petitioner's club in the evening under the guise of enquiry and also threatened the members of the petitioner's club.

4. This Court in several writ petitions filed by other clubs directed the police not to interfere with the club activities and the members of the club are permitted to play games of rummy. However, if any illegal games conducted by the clubs, the police personnel shall interfere with the club and take appropriate action as against them. Therefore, the respondent registered the FIR as against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was playing rummy is a matter of offence and already the petitioner was permitted to run the club with the indoor games.

5. As per the manual of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, below the rank of Inspector of Police, not to register and investigate a case.

6. The case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India, in Mohan Lal .Vs. The State of Punjab , in Crl.A.No.1880 of 2011 dt.16.08.2018 . It will be useful to extract the relevant portions of the judgment which is 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 interpretation therefore naturally has to be avoided. 12. That investigation in a criminal offence must be free from objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a grievance on part of the accused was noticed in Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat , (2010) 12 S