The Supreme Court on Monday upheld that Simple lacks in examination or chinks in the prosecution case can’t be the sole reason for concluding bias by the Investigating Officer in an NDPS Case.
The accused was acquitted by the trial court. On the appeal of the state, the high court convicted the accused. Before the Apex Court, the contention of the accused was that the investigation by the complainant himself would be contrary to the scheme of the NDPS act and thus jeopardizing the provisions.
The bench comprising Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant, and Hrishikesh Roy said, “Although in some cases, certain actions (or lack thereof) by the Investigating Officer might indicate bias; but mere deficiencies in investigation or chinks in the prosecution case can’t be the sole basis for concluding bias. The appellants have at no stage claimed that there existed any enmity or other motive for the police to falsely implicate them and let the real culprit walk free. Further, such a huge quantity of charas could not have been planted against the appellants by the police on its own.”
Another contention that was raised was about the failure of the police to investigate the research at the phase of Section 313 CrPC. which caused prejudice and bias against them. The bench rightly stated that how the non-investigation of a defence theory disclosed at an advanced stage of a trial could indicate bias on the part of the police and thus rejected the contention.
The bench observed while dismissing the appeal,
“As held in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar, the safeguards for the search of a person would not extend to his bag or other article being carried by them. Given how the narcotics have been discovered from a backpack, as per both the prosecution and defence versions, there arises no need to examine compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act.”