Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent and also perused entire record carefully.

8. Point for determination in the present appeal is .

whether learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties and caused miscarriage of justice to the appellant as alleged in memorandum of grounds of appeal.

join the independent witnesses in present case. It was held in case reported in (1987)2 Crimes 29 (Delhi High Court) titled Rattan Lal vs. State that if public witnesses were deliberately not associated in the search and seizure proceedings in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances cases then prosecution case is not free from doubt. As per testimonies of PW1 Head Constable Bishan Singh and PW2 Rajinder Singh and PW4 C. Heera Singh a number of vehicles were crossing on the place of incident at the time of preparation of seizure memo but Investigating Officer did not associate any independent witness in search and seizure proceedings and no efforts were made by Investigating Officer to associate independent witnesses in investigation of case. There is no evidence on record that independent witnesses refused to join the search and seizure proceedings despite efforts made by Investigating Officer to join them as independent witnesses. Hence we are of the opinion that non-joining of independent witnesses by prosecution at the time of preparation of search and seizure memo despite the availability of independent witnesses has caused miscarriage of justice to accused in present case in order to prove .

12. PW7 ASI Partap Singh has specifically stated in positive manner that special report was not placed on record and he has further stated that no reference of sending the special report to SDPO was mentioned in challan is also fatal to prosecution. No reason has been assigned by prosecution as to why special report was not placed on record and no reason has been assigned by prosecution that as to why reference of special report was not mentioned in list of documents filed along with challan. Non-placing of special report on record and non-mentioning of reference of special report in challan has caused miscarriage of justice to .

16. As per FIR complainant in present case is ASI Partap Singh and it is proved on record that complainant ASI Partap Singh himself investigated the entire case and he .

himself seized the contraband, sealed the parcels, sent the ruka, prepared site plan and recorded statements of prosecution witnesses. In present case whole investigation was conducted by complainant himself which is against the criminal jurisprudence and ipso facto contrary to law and same has caused miscarriage of justice to accused. It is not the case of prosecution that no other independent Investigating Officer was available. We are of the opinion that entire investigation in present case conducted by complainant namely ASI Partap Singh has caused miscarriage of justice to accused. Entire investigation by complainant himself was deprecated by Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case reported in AIR 1976 SC 985 titled Bhagwan Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan. Also see 1993 Criminal Law Journal 3716 titled Gyan Chand vs. State of Rajasthan.