Crime reporters can investigate under the Abkari Act

NEW DELHI

The Supreme Court, in the case of Sathyan vs. State of Kerala, observed that the testimonies of official witnesses should not be disregarded simply due to the absence of testimony from independent witnesses.
Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol noted that an individual who receives information about a crime or detects its occurrence is permitted to investigate the matter. In this particular case, the appellant, who was accused, was arrested for transporting five litres of Arrack in a jerry can using his autorickshaw. As a result, he was convicted under Section 8 of the Abkari Act, which prohibits activities such as the manufacture, import, export, transport, possession, storage, and sale of arrack. His subsequent appeal was dismissed by the High Court.
The key issues raised by the appellant were:
=Whether a conviction based solely on the testimonies of official witnesses is valid in this context.
=Whether a delay of almost three years in filing the challan could potentially compromise the validity of the judgement.
One of the primary arguments presented was that the investigation’s fairness might be compromised since the individual who identified the crime and the investigator were the same person. The court noted that the person who initially receives information or detects the crime can indeed conduct the investigation. The legitimacy of such an investigation, if questioned due to bias or similar factors, would be determined based on the specifics of each individual case. There isn’t a universally applicable, straightforward rule in this regard. It was further highlighted by the court that just because the individual who identified the commission of the crime was also the one who filed the report or conducted the investigation, it doesn’t inherently make the investigation invalid. Upon examining the records, the court determined that the presentation of the seized Arrack did not experience undue delays. Given the case’s circumstances and considering that over 20 years have passed since the crime was committed, the bench decided to modify the sentence to a duration of three months of
simple imprisonment.