CASE LAW- MOHAN LAL V.

STATE OF PUNJAB
[(2018) 17 SCC 627]

Submitted By:- Rupal Dash

SOA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW
GROUP-6
SUBMISSION DATE- 3rd JUNE, 2024
Details of the case

 Bench of Judges – Navin Sinha, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi

 Date of judgement – 16th August 2018
 Citation – (2018) 17 SCC 627
 Name of the court – The Supreme Court of India

Parties Involved

Appellant: Mohan Lal

Respondent: The State of Punjab

Facts

Sub-Inspector of Balianwali Police Station, Chand Singh was accompanied by Darshan Singh,
the Sarpanch, and Assistant Sub-Inspector Balwinder Singh, during the patrol duty. Upon seeing
the appellant i.e. Mohan Lal, some amount of reasonable suspicion and doubts arose in the mind
of the witness present over there, and therefore, Shri Rajinder N. Dhoke, who was an IPS (a
gazetted officer) called the appellant and searched him. The search led to the discovery of 4 kg of
opium in a bag, which was carried by the appellant. Upon recovery of the opium, a consent
memo was signed by Darshan Singh, who was a private person in a police vehicle, and Chand
Singh (Sub-Inspector).

The opium seized was separated into two samples, of which one was of 20 grams, while the
others were of 3 kilograms and 980 grams. A specimen of the seal was prepared by Sub-
Inspector Chand Singh and after attaching it, the seized material was handed over to ASI
Balwinder Singh. Thereafter, a separate recovery memo was prepared by Chand Singh and was
sent to Balianwali Police Station. As a result the Assistant Sub-Inspector named Darshan Singh,
registered a formal FIR. After the FIR was filed, the entire investigation was handed over to
Chand Singh. The property related to the case was retained by Sub-Inspector Chand Singh and
was not deposited to a warehouse which is used to store the items that are seized and are
suspected to be connected with a crime. Apart from this, no entry was made in the police diary.
The item that was seized was kept under the private custody of Sub-Inspector Chand Singh, in a
rented accommodation.

After the conclusion of the entire investigation process, the accused was charge-sheeted, put on
trial, and was eventually convicted under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, which sentenced him to a
rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of rupees 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh).
Issues raised

 The main issue before the court of law was that, since Section 35 of the NDPS Act, 1985
carries a reverse burden of proof, does an informant of the case become an investigative
officer, and if so, would it be in consonance with the principle of justice, fair play and fair
investigation?

Holdings

Burden of proof
During the trial of the case, the parties may make a claim under the impression that it is a well
established fact. However, the validity and truthfulness of these claims must be proved. This
concept is known as burden of proof. The provisions regarding burden of proof can be found
under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 from Section 101 to Section 114. As a general rule, the
burden of proof lies on the prosecution, wherein they are required to prove that injury has been
suffered by them beyond reasonable doubt. Apart from this, if the case pertains to a heinous
crime, the burden of proof shifts to the accused, and the accused must prove that he/she is
innocent.

In the present criminal case under the NDPS Act, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, and
they must prove to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has actually committed
the crime.

Reverse burden of proof

Once the prosecution has successfully submitted and proved all the facts and any other relevant
aspects, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to present his side and this is regarded as a
reverse burden of proof.

Reverse burden of proof can be defined as a legal doctrine in which the burden of proof shifts
from the prosecution to the defence. Hence, the defendant under this doctrine is required to prove
innocence on his part, rather than the prosecution proving his guilt.

Rebutting of presumption – reverse burden of proof

There is a general presumption in criminal jurisprudence which states that an accused is innocent
until proven guilty. This provision as a general rule is applicable to all the general and special
statutes, unless excluded. There also exist exceptions for instance, an exception to the general
rule is available under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by virtue of Sections 111A (Presumption as
to certain offences), 113A (Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married
woman), 113B (Presumption as to dowry death), and 114A (Presumption regarding lack of
consent in specific rape prosecutions) etc. of the Indian Evidence Act.
On a similar note, Section 35 of the NDPS Act, provides an exception. This Section elucidates
that the court shall presume the existence of a culpable mental state of the accused. However, the
accused must prove that there was no such mental element. Therefore, it can be said that the
accused is required to rebut the presumption against him and hence, the burden of proof lies on
him.

Article 21
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides an individual with the right to life and personal
liberty as a fundamental right. The rights provided under this article are the most vital and basic.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to the procedure established by the law”. The interpretation of
this provision by the Indian Judiciary includes various aspects of human life and liberty that go
beyond mere physical existence. The Supreme Court of India in its catena of judgments has held
that the right to life includes the rights to livelihood, right to privacy, right to a clean
environment, right to a free and fair trial, right to live with dignity, right to shelter, right to
nutritional food, right against illegal detention, right to health and medical assistance, right to
sleep, right to education, etc.

The landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) played a crucial role in
expanding the scope of Article 21. The Supreme Court of India, in this case, held that the right to
life and personal liberty does not merely refer to animal existence, but it also extends to the right
to lead a meaningful life. The court further observed that the right to life also includes the right
to travel abroad, and the government cannot curtail this right without specifying a reasonable
reason for the same. This judgment is one of the vital decisions that expanded the overall scope
of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Fair Investigation as fundamental right

Peace and harmony among the people are one of the essential components of a democratic
society. Every person is entitled to certain rights, which would ensure a basic, just and dignified
way of life. Article 20 of the Indian Constitution safeguards the rights of the accused. This, along
with Article 21, calls for a fair trial as well as a fair investigation. It is not always the crime that
deters the peace and harmony of the society, but along with that, flawed investigation can also
eventually contribute to the same. Therefore, for the rule of law to exist, investigation must be
carried out in a fair and transparent manner, which would not strip the concerned parties of their
fundamental rights.

Procedural history

Trial Court

1. FIR and Investigation:

 An FIR was registered against Mohan Lal under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) for allegedly possessing and dealing with contraband
substances.
 The same police officer who registered the FIR also conducted the investigation and the
subsequent raid that led to the recovery of the contraband.

2. Trial and Conviction:

 The trial court convicted Mohan Lal based on the evidence collected during the
investigation. The evidence primarily consisted of the contraband recovered and
testimonies, including the investigation officer's account.

High Court

3. Appeal to the High Court:

 Mohan Lal appealed against the conviction to the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

 The High Court upheld the conviction, dismissing the appeal. The High Court did not
find any fault with the investigation conducted by the same officer who registered the
FIR.

Supreme Court

4. Appeal to the Supreme Court:

 Dissatisfied with the High Court's decision, Mohan Lal appealed to the Supreme Court of
India.

 The primary ground for the appeal was the contention that the investigation was biased
and unfair since it was conducted by the same officer who registered the FIR, violating
principles of natural justice and fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

5. Supreme Court's Decision:

 The Supreme Court considered the appeal and delivered its judgment on August 16,
2018.

 The Court held that the investigation carried out by the same officer who lodged the FIR
was fundamentally flawed and biased. It emphasized the need for a fair and impartial
investigation to ensure a fair trial.
  The Supreme Court quashed the conviction of Mohan Lal, highlighting that the
involvement of the same officer in both registering the FIR and investigating the case
violated the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the
Constitution.

Rationale

1. Importance of Fair Investigation

The Court underscored that a fair investigation is a crucial component of the right to a fair trial,
which is enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A fair trial not only involves fair
adjudication but also a fair and unbiased investigation.

2. Separation of Investigative Roles

The Court highlighted the necessity for the separation of roles between the officer who registers
the First Information Report (FIR) and the officer who conducts the investigation. This
separation is vital to ensure that the investigation remains free from any bias or conflict of
interest. The investigating officer should be impartial and should not have any preconceived
notions about the case, which could be compromised if the same officer is involved in both roles.

3. Conflict of Interest

The Court pointed out that when the same officer who registers the FIR also conducts the
investigation, there is a significant risk of a conflict of interest. This can lead to a biased
investigation as the officer might have a vested interest in proving the charges he has laid,
thereby compromising the fairness of the investigation.

4. Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness

The Court reiterated the principles of natural justice, which demand that justice should not only
be done but should also be seen to be done. This includes the need for an impartial investigation
process. Procedural fairness requires that an accused person must be tried and investigated in a
manner that is fair, unbiased, and without prejudice.
5. Impact on Public Confidence

The judgment emphasized that the criminal justice system must maintain public confidence. An
investigation that is perceived to be biased can erode public trust in the system. Ensuring that
different officers handle the registration of the FIR and the investigation helps to maintain and
enhance public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the criminal justice system.

6. Application of the Doctrine of Bias

The Court applied the doctrine of bias, which states that a person cannot be a judge in their own
cause. This principle extends to situations where the same officer who initiates the case by
registering the FIR also investigates it, as it raises legitimate apprehensions of bias.

Dicta

The dicta establish clear guidelines aimed at ensuring the fairness of the criminal investigation
process. These dicta underscore the importance of an impartial investigation, the necessity of
separating investigative roles to avoid conflicts of interest, and the critical need to uphold the
principles of natural justice and procedural fairness to maintain public confidence in the criminal
justice system.

Dissenting View:

 The dissenting opinion challenges the correctness of the decision in Mohan Lal v. State
of Punjab (reported in (2018) 17 SCC 627).
 The key contention is that when the investigation is conducted by the same police officer
who is also the complainant, it vitiates the trial.
 The dissenting view asserts that such a situation establishes a presumption of bias,
entitling the accused to acquittal.

Arguments by the Parties

Contentions raised by the appellants

Learned counsel for the appellant, Sh. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli submitted the following –
  That being a stringent law, the NDPS Act carries the concept of reverse burden of
proof and the provisions relating to it must be adhered to strictly. The investigation must
not only be fair and judicial, but must also appear to be done in a fair and judicial
manner.
 It was further submitted by the counsel that the investigation must not be done in a
manner in which the result leaves an apprehension in the mind of the accused that the
investigation was not carried out in a fair and bonafide way.
 It was argued by the counsel that no reason was given by the prosecution with respect to
why Darshan Singh, who was accompanied in a police vehicle as a private person and
ASI Balwinder, have not been examined. Furthermore, either proper examination must be
carried out, or the reasons must be stated. Neither was done.
 The counsel questioned the reason behind why the seized item was not deposited to a
warehouse which is used to store the items that are seized and are suspected to be
connected with a crime and was kept in the private custody of Sub-Inspector Chand
Singh, along with no explanation being furnished regarding the same.
 Another fact that remained unexplainable was that there was a delay of 9 days in sending
the sample for chemical analysis, and this must be taken into consideration, since there
was no explanation provided for the same.
 The counsel referred to the precedents of Bhagwan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan
(1976), Megha Singh vs. State of Haryana (1996), etc. and submitted that being an
informant of the case, one cannot also be the investigative officer of the same case.

Contentions raised by the respondents

Learned counsel for the respondent, Ms. Jaspreet Gogai contended that following –

 That the accused was examined in the presence of Shri Rajinder N. Dhoke who is an IPS,
a gazetted officer and it was further submitted that the failure to examine Darshan Singh
or ASI Balwinder Singh was not of significance, since the whole instance of search and
recovery of opium was duly proved by Sub-Inspector Chand Singh and Shri Rajinder N.
Dhoke.
 It was further contended that the evidence given by the police officer must not impair its
legal validity. There shall be a presumption that the official duties performed by the
police officer must be regularly performed.
 In view of statutory presumption under Section 35 and Section 54 of the NDPS Act, the
burden of proof for innocence shall lie on the accused.
 Relying on the precedents of State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh (1999), Bhaskar Ramappa
Madar & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (2009), it was contended by the counsel that the
investigation does not lose its legal validity simply because Sub-Inspector Chand Singh
was an informant in the present case.

Judgment
The court allowed the appeal primarily on the ground of constitutional guarantee of a fair
investigation. The various considerations of the Supreme Court on this matter are as follows-

1. Instances that form the matter of further investigation

The court was of the opinion that Darshan Singh was an illiterate person who was
accompanying Sub-Inspector Chand Singh in the police vehicle, along with ASI Balwinder
Singh which implied that Darshan Singh’s signature on the consent memo could not have been
possible and hence, raises suspicion. It was further stated by the court that the substance related
to the case was kept by Sub-Inspector Chand Singh in the private custody of his rented
accommodation and went on to question why despite the availability of an authorized warehouse
which is used to store the items that are seized, the property was kept in private
accommodation.

Moreover, there was no entry made in the police diary by Sub-Inspector Chand Singh, and no
explanation was provided for the same. Apart from this, the signatures of ASI Balwinder Singh
and Shri Rajinder N. Dhoke was not obtained on the consent memo. Additionally, there was a
delay of 9 days in sending the sample for chemical analysis. The court further held that if the
informant and the investigator of the case had been different, the matter of consideration would
have differed as well. The appellant had taken the defence under Section 313 of the CrPC, that
he had been falsely implicated by Sub-Inspector Chand Singh on account of the prior dispute
with regards to the purchase of a tractor.

2. Court’s view on reverse burden of proof

The court, while reiterating the general principle of criminal jurisprudence, that the accused is
innocent until proven guilty, went on to express that Section 35 and Section 54 of the NDPS Act
carries a reverse burden of proof. The burden of proof shifts to the accused right from the
beginning, without requiring the prosecution to establish anything further. However, this
presumption is rebuttable under Section 35(2) of the NDPS Act, which provides that the facts
can be said to be proved when they have been established completely, without leaving any scope
for doubts and in such situations, probability must be excluded entirely. Therefore, the case of
the prosecution cannot be allowed merely on the basis of preponderance or balance of
probability.

3. Reference to standing order 1 of 88 issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau

The court referred to Standing Order 1 of 88 issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau under
clause 1.13, the opening line of which reads as “Mode and time limit for dispatch of sample to
laboratory”. This states that the sample of the seized item must be sent, either by insured post or
through any special messenger duly authorized for this purpose. The sample must be dispatched
within 72 hours from the time of seizure, in order to avoid any kind of legal objection. In the
present case, there was a delay that went beyond the period prescribed under the Standing Order.

4. Fair trial under Article 21

The court held that the accused is entitled to a fair trial, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution. It was observed that this guarantee would become a hollow promise if the
investigation under the cases relating to the NDPS Act is not done in a fair and transparent
manner or if any kind of objection is raised prima facie regarding the fairness of the
investigation. The prosecution, under that condition, is required to prove that the investigation
had taken place in a fair and judicial manner and there was no instance that would lead to
questioning of the veracity of the investigation. Therefore, a fair investigation and hence a fair
trial, is of paramount importance, particularly in upholding Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

SUBMITTED BY:-

RUPAL DASH

SOA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW, BHUBANESWAR

GROUP 6