ORDER : 1. The petitioner is the 2nd accused facing trial in C.C. No. 152 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchengodu for offence under Section 9 (B) (1-b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1884. 2. The suo motu First Information Report by Mr.Paulraj, the Special Sub-Inspector of Police (SSI), Molasi, came to be registered on 08.07.2015 at 10.30 a.m. which states that based on information that illegal poaching of fish using explosive is carried on the river side behind the Muniappan Temple, the team of Police led by the Special Sub Inspector went to the spot for patrolling. On seeing the Police team, two persons tried to flee away from the place. The patrol team surrounded them and apprehended. On enquiry, they confessed that they are engaged in poaching of fish using explosive cartridges Celari-11 (SUN 90), ED -10 and OD-3, without using traditional nets. From them, the explosives were recovered at 09.00 hours under mahazar witnessed by K. Periyasami and K. Kamaraj, both Senior Grade Police Constables from the patrol team. 3. The investigation taken up by the said Special Sub Inspector, who registered the case. On completion of investigation, Final Report filed against these two persons and the same was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchengodu. The annexure to the Final Report indicates the prosecution has proposed to examine 5 witnesses, which includes the Special Sub Inspector, who is the informant as well the Investigation Officer, the two Senior Grade-I, Police Constables of the patrol team, who signed the Seizure Mahazar and the two independent witnesses for the preparation of Observation Mahazar. 4. In the petition to quash, it is specifically pleaded that the petitioner is running a Tiffin shop on the road side. The case is foisted against him by the Special Sub Inspector Mr. Paulraj for not giving momool to run the road side tiffin shop. The said Special Sub Inspector, who as informant registered the First Information Report, investigated the case and filed the Final Report. The said act is contrary to the principle of fair trial enshrined in the Constitution of India as one of the fundamental right. 5. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl. The said Special Sub Inspector, who as informant registered the First Information Report, investigated the case and filed the Final Report. The said act is contrary to the principle of fair trial enshrined in the Constitution of India as one of the fundamental right. 5. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) relying upon the judgment in Mukesh Singh vs. State (Narcotic Branch of New Delhi), (2020) 10 SCC 120 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court consisting of the Hon’ble Five Judges, submitted that earlier the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab, 2018 (17) SCC 627 held, in case the investigation is conducted by the police officer, who himself is the complainant, the trial is vitiated and the accused is entitled to acquittal. Contrary to this view, there were line of judgments, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Investigating Officer and the complainant being the same person, does not vitiate the investigation. In view of conflicting views expressed, the correctness of Mukesh Singh judgment was doubted by a subsequent Bench of equal strength and therefore, the matter was referred to the Larger Bench consisting of the Hon’ble Three Judges. The Hon’ble Three Judges Bench thought fit the issue is to be settled by the Bench consisting of 5 Judges. Thus, when the matter placed before the Bench consisting of 5 Judges, the Hon’ble Supreme Court tracing the law on this matter, held that there is no bar against the informant police officer to investigate the case. Such investigation could only be assailed on the ground of bias or real likelihood of bias on the part of the Investigating Officer. Therefore, on the sole ground that the informant and the Investigating Officer are one and the same person, the accused is not entitled to acquittal. 6. As far as the issue, whether the Informant can also investigate the case, the decision in Mohan Lal case espoused one school of thought which believe that in a criminal prosecution, it will not be in consonance with the principles of justice, fair play and fair investigation, if the informant and the investigating officer were to be the same person. In case involving reverse burden of proof, the onus is on the prosecution to demonstrate on the face of it that the investigation was fair, judicious without no circumstances that may raise doubts about its veracity. In case involving reverse burden of proof, the onus is on the prosecution to demonstrate on the face of it that the investigation was fair, judicious without no circumstances that may raise doubts about its veracity. If the investigation itself is unfair, to require the accused to demonstrate prejudice will be fraught with danger vesting arbitrary powers to the police, which may well lead to false implication also. To leave, the matter for being determined on the individual facts of the case, may not only lead to a possible abuse of powers but more importantly will leave the police, the accused, the lawyer and the Courts in a state of uncertainity and confusion, which has to be avoided. Therefore, fair investigation, which is very foundation of a fair trial, necessarily postulates that the informant and the investigator must not be the same person. 7. Contrarily, the other school of thought espoused through Judgments like Sunil Kumar Banerjee vs. St. of West Bengal, 1980 (3) SCC 304 , State vs. Jayapaul, (2004) 5 SCC 223 , S. Jeevanantham vs. State, 2004 (5) SCC 230 , Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220 , Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762 and Surender alias Kala vs. State of Haryana, 2016 (4) SCC 617 is that, there cannot be hard and fast rule with regard to the question the Investigating Officer and the informant cannot be the same person. As per Section 154 Cr.P.C. every information relating to the Commission of a cognizable offence, if given in writing, the substance of the complaint to be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe or if given orally, it has to be reduced into writing and entered in the said book. Section 157 of Cr.P.C. envisages, investigation can be undertaken by the Investigating Officer on the basis of his own knowledge of the commission of cognizable offence. Illustration (e) to Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits Court to raise presumption that official acts have been done regularly performed. Chapter XXXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with provisions regarding irregular proceedings, does not say, irregularity in investigation will vitiate the trial. Illustration (e) to Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits Court to raise presumption that official acts have been done regularly performed. Chapter XXXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with provisions regarding irregular proceedings, does not say, irregularity in investigation will vitiate the trial. Therefore, there cannot be general preposition of law to be laid down that in every case where the informant is the investigator, the trial is vitiated. Only in case, the accused has been able to establish and prove the bias or unfair investigation by the informant-cum-investigator, the accused can take advantage of the plea unfairness and not otherwise. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court considering the two conflicting school of thought espoused through catena of judgments, had given quietus to the matter by answering the reference as below: “12. From the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, we conclude and answer the reference as under: (I) That the observations of this Court in the cases of Bhagwan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (1976) 1 SCC 15 , Megha Singh vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 709 and State by Inspector of Police, NIB, Tamil Nadu vs. Rajangam, (2010) 15 SCC 369 and the acquittal of the accused by this Court on the ground that as the informant and the investigator was the same, it has vitiated the trial and the accused is entitled to acquittal are to be treated to be confined to their own facts. It cannot be said that in the aforesaid decisions, this Court laid down any general proposition of law that in each and every case where the informant is the investigator there is a bias caused to the accused and the entire prosecution case is to be disbelieved and the accused is entitled to acquittal; (II) In a case where the informant himself is the investigator, by that itself cannot be said that the investigation is vitiated on the ground of bias or the like factor. The question of bias or prejudice would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, merely because the informant is the investigator, by that itself the investigation would not suffer the vice of unfairness or bias and therefore on the sole ground that informant is the investigator, the accused is not entitled to acquittal. The matter has to be decided on a case to case basis. Therefore, merely because the informant is the investigator, by that itself the investigation would not suffer the vice of unfairness or bias and therefore on the sole ground that informant is the investigator, the accused is not entitled to acquittal. The matter has to be decided on a case to case basis. A contrary decision of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab, (2018) 17 SCC 627 and any other decision taking a contrary view that the informant cannot be the investigator and in such a case the accused is entitled to acquittal are not good law and they are specifically overruled.” 9. In the case in hand, the prosecution version is that, explosives meant for illegally poaching of fish was recovered from the accused persons on 08/07/2015 at about 9.00 am. At the time of seizure, there was no public witnesses available, hence seizure mahazar is witnessed by the Senior Grade-I, Constables, Mr. Periyasamy and Mr. Kamaraj. However, in the Observation Mahazar prepared for the scene of crime, two public witnesses namely, Boopathy and Prakash have signed. This observation mahazar has been prepared at 9.00 am. These two witnesses in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had said that they were present in the scene of occurrence on 08.07.2015, since 8.00 a.m. and talking with each other. Therefore, the reason for not conducting the seizure procedure in the presence of public witnesses found to be false. 10. It is also noticed that in the arrest card of both the accused, the time of arrest is not mentioned and left blank. This also strengthens the case of the accused that the case is foisted due to the bias of the Special Sub Inspector who happened to be the informant as well as the investigator. 11. The prosecution in its own records say, public witnesses were present at the time of alleged recovery of explosive, but they were not asked to be witnesses for the said recovery. The glaring omission to recover the explosive in the presence of public witnesses, who were present sufficiently lead to the inference that the Investigating Officer with the help of his own subordinate has foisted the case against the accused persons. The glaring omission to recover the explosive in the presence of public witnesses, who were present sufficiently lead to the inference that the Investigating Officer with the help of his own subordinate has foisted the case against the accused persons. Though he claims that he went to the spot, on oral information, he has not reduced it into writing as contemplated under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and registered FIR on the basis of that information, but after arrest and seizure, had come to the police station and registered Suo Motu FIR at 10.30 am. Thus, the case suffers vice of unfairness and bias, which warrants exercise of inherent power to prevent abuse of law. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. 12. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The case in C.C. No. 152 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchengodu stand quahsed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.