NDLI: Mohan Lal Vs. The State of Punjab

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:Fairness and impartial ity in investigation – Informant andinvestigator, if same person – Sanctity of such investigation –Whether in a criminal prosecution, it will be in consonance with theprinciples of justice, fair play and a fair investigation, if theinformant and the investigating officer were to be the same person– Held: If an informant police official in a criminal prosecution,especially when carrying a reverse burden of proof, makes theallegations and is himself asked to investigate, serious doubts wouldnaturally arise with regard to his fairness and impartiality – It isnot necessary to actually prove bias – It would be illogical to presumeand would be contrary to normal human conduct, that he wouldhimself at the end of the investigation submit a closure report toconclude false implication with all its attendant consequences forthe complainant himself – The result of the investigation would,therefore, be a foregone conclusion – A fair investigation, which isbut the very foundation of fair trial, necessarily postulates that theinformant and the investigator must not be the same person – Justicemust not only be done, but must appear to be done also – Anypossibi lity of bias or a predetermined conclusion has to beexcluded – This requirement is all the more imperative in lawscarrying a reverse burden of proof – Bias – Criminal law – Fairtrial – Investigation – Natural justice – Evidence – Reverse burdenof proof.Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: s.18– Conviction under – Recovery of opium – The informant-policeofficial PW-1 accompanied by the Sarpanch and another policeoffice recovered 4 kg of opium from a bag carried by appellant –Consent memo signed by the Sarpanch and PW-1 – PW-1 did not deposit the narcotics in the malkhana – Conviction by courts below –On appeal , held: The Sarpanch was stated to have beenaccompanying the police official (PW1) and ASI in a police vehiclewhile on official duty – This is certainly not in the normal course ofevents – The consent memo was stated to have been signed by theSarpanch, despite he being an illiterate – There was no explanationfrom the prosecution why the Sarpanch and ASI were not examineddespite service of summons on the official witness and issuance ofbailable warrants against the private witness – In their absence,neither the consent memo nor the seal can be stated to be proved –The presence of a private person in a police vehicle while on patrolduty, the individual being an illiterate, but having signed the consentmemo were surely matters for investigation – The case property wasretained by PW-1 in his private custody in a rented accommodationand was not deposited in the malkhana nor entered in theroznamcha – There was nine days’ delay in sending the sample forchemical analysis – No explanation was furnished in respect of thesame – The delay in sending the sample for chemical analysis, inthe facts and circumstances of the case was again a matter forinvestigation – Prosecution was vitiated because of the infractionof the consitutional guarantee of a fair investigation – Appellantdirected to be set at liberty forthwith.Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: s.55 –Held: It is the duty of the police officer to deposit the seized materialin the police station malkhana.Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:Burden of proof – The stringent provisions of the NDPS Act do notdispense with the requirement of the prosecution to establish a primafacie case beyond reasonable doubt after investigation, only afterwhich the burden of proof shall shift to the accused – The case ofthe prosecution cannot be allowed to rest on a preponderance ofprobabilities.Investigation: Fair trial – Reverse burden of proof – Onus toprove – In NDPS cases – Held: A fair trial to an accused, aconstitutional guarantee under Art.21 of the Constitution, wouldbe a hollow promise if the investigation in a NDPS case were not tobe fair or raises serious questions about its fairness apparent onthe face of the investigation – In the nature of the reverse burden of proof, the onus will lie on the prosecution to demonstrate on theface of it that the investigation was fair, judicious with nocircumstances that may raise doubts about its veracity – If theinvestigation itself is unfair, to require the accused to demonstrateprejudice will be fraught with danger vesting arbitrary powers inthe police which may well lead to false implication also –Investigation in such a case would then become an empty formalityand a farce – Such an interpretation, therefore, naturally has to beavoided.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Neutral Citation	2018 INSC 714
Petitioner	Mohan Lal
Respondent	The State Of Punjab
SCR	[2018] 9 S.C.R. 1006
Judgement Date	2018-08-16
Case Number	1880

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Mohan Lal Vs. The State of Punjab

Please Log-in to view this content

Noor Aga Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.

State of Punjab Vs. Balbir Singh and Ors.

Mohinder Singh Vs. The State of Punjab

Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab

State of Rajasthan Vs. Ratan Lal

Mohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Siate of Punjab Vs. Nirmal Singh

State of Punjab Vs. Ram Pal

State of Punjab Vs. Balwant Rai

Mohan Lal Vs. The State of Punjab

Mohan Lal Vs. The State of Punjab

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Noor Aga Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.

State of Punjab Vs. Balbir Singh and Ors.

Mohinder Singh Vs. The State of Punjab

Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab

State of Rajasthan Vs. Ratan Lal

Mohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Siate of Punjab Vs. Nirmal Singh

State of Punjab Vs. Ram Pal

State of Punjab Vs. Balwant Rai

Mohan Lal Vs. The State of Punjab