What is the present status of the Mohan Lal principle?

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Acquittal solely on Mohan Lal — Merits not considered — Held: Where the High Court acquitted the accused solely on the principle in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, that the informant cannot be the investigator, without considering or appreciating the evidence led before the Trial Court, the acquittal rests on a technical ground and not on the merits. Precedent — Varinder Kumar and Mukesh Singh — Appeal as a continuation of proceedings — Held further: Mohan Lal cannot be a springboard for acquittal in prosecutions prior to it (Varinder Kumar, three-Judge Bench), and it has since been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Mukesh Singh, which held that the informant being the investigator does not by itself vitiate the investigation; as an appeal is a continuation of proceedings, the law as it stands today applies. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Acquittal set aside — Remand — Disposition — Held further: The acquittal resting only on the diluted and overruled principle in Mohan Lal cannot stand; the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration on merits, with a request to expedite the hearing as the appeals pertain to 2010. Appeals allowed.

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Act”) whereas 4 were under other different statutes such as

(8) The submission is that seeing the conduct of the respondent (Gurnam @ Gama) he did not deserve any concession from the Court purely on technicalities.

(9) As far as the respondent (Jaswinder Singh) in Criminal Appeal No.2837 of 2025 is concerned, the submission is that she does not have any information/details about his antecedents after the FIR in question was registered.

(10) On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondents submitted that the judgment in Mohan Lal’s case (supra) was delivered on 16th August, 2018 and it was the law on that day and relying upon the same, the High Court had acquitted the respondents vide impugned judgment dated 11th December, 2018. Any subsequent opinion by the Court cannot have retrospective operation. Hence, the acquittal of the respondents cannot be turned down.

(11) He raised serious objections to the production of antecedents of the respondent - Gurnam @ Gama by the learned counsel for the appellant in Court stating that the same has not been furnished along with any affidavit. Hence, these cannot be referred to and relied upon.

(12) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. The facts of the case are not required to be given in detail, as perusal of 6 the impugned judgment of the High Court by which the respondents were acquitted shows that the evidence led before the Trial Court was not considered or appreciated. The acquittal was solely on the principle of law laid down by this Court in Mohan Lal’s case (supra).

(13) The judgment in Mohan Lal’s case (supra) was delivered by this Court on 16th August, 2018. The High Court judgment in favor of the respondents is dated 11th December, 2018. Thereafter, the Special Leave Petitions were filed with delay. However, the delay was condoned and the leave was granted. After the judgment of the Mohan Lal’s case (supra), a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Varinder Kumar’s case (supra) clarified the position with reference to Mohan Lal’s case (supra) in paragraph 18 of the judgment. The same is extracted below:

“18. The criminal justice delivery system, cannot be allowed to veer exclusively to the benefit of the offender making it unidirectional exercise. A proper administration of the criminal justice delivery system, therefore, requires balancing the rights of the accused and the prosecution, so that the law laid down in Mohan Lal is not allowed to become a springboard for acquittal in prosecutions prior to the same, irrespective of all other considerations. We, therefore, hold that 7 all pending criminal prosecutions, trials and appeals prior to the law laid down in Mohan Lal shall continue to be governed by the individual facts of the case.”

(14) A perusal of the aforesaid opinion expressed by this Court shows that the rights of the accused and the prosecution are required to be balanced and the judgment in Mohan Lal’s case (supra) could not be allowed to be a springboard for acquittal in prosecutions prior to the same, irrespective of all other considerations. It was held that all pending criminal prosecutions, trials and appeals prior to the law laid down in Mohan Lal’s case (supra) shall continue to be governed by the individual facts of the case. It is not in dispute that in the case in hand the appeals were pending before the judgment in Mohan Lal’s case (supra) was delivered. Thereafter, the matter was taken to this Court where the same is pending.

(15) Further, we may add that the opinion expressed in Mohan Lal’s case (supra) was doubted and the matter was referred to the Constitution Bench (Mukesh Singh’s case (supra)) where the opinion expressed by this Court in Mohan Lal’s case (supra) was held to be not a good law and overruled. Para 12.(II) whereof is extracted below:

“12.(II) In a case where the informant himself is the investigator, by that itself 8 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. A contrary decision of this Court in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab 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.” (emphasis supplied)

(16) We may notice the argument raised by the learned senior counsel for the respondents that any judgment will not have retrospective effect. In our opinion, nothing hinges on that. Courts only interprets law and do not enact law. In the case in hand, the judgment of Mohan Lal’s case (supra) prevailed when the High Court decided the appeals. However, thereafter, the matter is pending in this Court and since appeals are continuation of proceedings, the law as 9 available today is to be applied. The acquittal of the respondents in the present case was merely on technical ground in view of Mohan Lal’s case (supra) which was diluted in Varinder Kumar’s case (supra) and then overruled subsequently by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Mukesh Singh’s case (supra).

(17) Hence, in our opinion, the appeals deserve to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for consideration on merits.

(18) Keeping in view that the appeals pertain to the year 2010, High Court is requested to expedite the hearing thereof.

(19) Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. ..........................J. (RAJESH BINDAL) ..........................J. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) NEW DELHI; July 30, 2025 10