SC sets rules for probe in narcotics case

ISLAMABAD:

The Supreme Court has held that the police officer who lodged a complaint against a suspect in a criminal case should not act as the investigation officer (IO) in the same case particularly if it relates to narcotics, which carry stringent punishments.

“The dual role of a police officer acting as both complainant and the IO is highly discouraged, particularly in narcotics cases,” said the 6-page judgement authored by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail in a narcotics case.

The petitioner was arrested in 2019 and the trial court convicted him under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act (CNSA), 1997, sentencing him to life imprisonment.

The Sindh High Court (SHC) also maintained his conviction. A three-judge bench led by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail heard his appeal and later acquitted the petitioner.

According to the verdict, if a complainant is appointed as the IO, the appointing authority must provide cogent reasons for this appointment. Otherwise, the verdict said, it weakens the prosecution’s case.

“To ensure a fair, natural and unbiased investigation free from any doubt, it is recommended that the task of investigation should be entrusted to an impartial official, vested with requisite authority, rather than the complainant,” it said.

The SC said it is necessary to eliminate biases or predetermined conclusions and to ensure due process and a fair trial, adding that the court must closely examine the evidence with extreme caution.

The bench posed the question of whether the appointment of a complainant as the IO is legal. The judgement noted that technically, such an appointment is not illegal.

However, it said, the crucial issue is whether a complainant or informant of a case, upon becoming the IO, can remain impartial and ensure that the investigation is conducted in consonance with the principles of justice, fair play, and transparency.

The judgement noted that as per the police rules, the duty assigned to an IO is to find out the truth of the matter under investigation to discover the actual facts of the case.

“Naturally, a complainant is always inclined towards conviction, therefore, it is near to impossible for a complainant to investigate his own complaint with open-minded objectivity required to collect evidence for and against the complaint (FIR).

“Instead of searching for the truth and collecting every possible evidence, the IO might confine himself to only look for evidence that proves his own complaint and validate his allegation and thereby to avoid consequences of providing false or incorrect information.”

The court said such conduct of the IO may consciously or unconsciously affect the right of an accused during the investigation.

It would, therefore, be illogical to presume that at the end of the investigation, the complainant/informant in his dual capacity as IO would submit a closure report to conclude that the information given by him against an accused, implicating him in the case is false.

“For this reason, such an investigation is often viewed as tainted and unreliable, and is therefore considered detrimental to the administration of justice,” it stated.

Commenting on the case, the court observed that the manner in which the investigation was conducted—from the recovery of evidence to its forensic analysis and its subsequent retention by the IO—all fall short of the settled principles governing due process and fair trial.

The verdict said it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the benefit of the slightest doubt arising in the prosecution’s case must be extended to the accused, especially when the complainant acts in his dual capacity as an IO.

“Under such circumstances, the act of the complainant is not free from doubt. Both the lower fora mis-appreciated the evidence and failed to extend the benefit of doubt to the petitioner, which is an illegality; hence, they came to a wrong conclusion.

“The judgments of the fora below are, therefore, not sustainable,” said the order.