29.
The answer is: A
Explanation
The correct option is A: State of Karnataka Vs Yarappa Reddy.
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the investigating officer who had captured the accused could not have probed the matter, but he could be allowed to refer to the records of investigation while giving evidence in court. The court observed that the investigating officer was not a tainted witness and his evidence could not be discarded merely because he was the informant as well as the investigator. The court also noted that the investigating officer had not conducted any investigation after the arrest of the accused and had only handed over the case diary to the succeeding officer. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no violation of the rule in para 486 of the U.P. Police Regulations, which required that every information received by the police relating to the commission of a cognizable offence by a police officer shall be dealt with in the first place under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.