BANSHI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and the Public Prosecutor for the State.

(2.) THE principal contention advanced by the counsel for the appellant is that he has been denied a just and fair trial inasmuch as it was Head Constable, Ganpat Singh who made the search of the appellant and recovered 200 grams of opium from his pocket. It was Ganpat Singh who arrested the accused, registered the case and investigated the stame. Thus, Ganpat Singh acted both as a complainant and an investigator. This was unpermissible and has resulted in gross-miscarriage of justice to the accused. Learned counsel has pointed out that there was violation of the provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 57 of the Act. In any event, argues learned counsel for the appellant, the role of head constable Ganpat Singh-both as a complainant and investigator- goes to the foot of the matter and vitiates the entire trial. Learned counsel has, in this connection, cited before me: Ronald Markas Goonthar vs. State of Rajasthan (1), Rana Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (2) and Bhagwan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (3 ).

(3.) THE principal enunciated above applies to the present case. Following the aforesaid cases, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove fairly and beyond a reasonable doubt its case against the accused.