JUDGMENT

RANGANATH MISRA, J.:— This appeal by special leave at the instance of the State of Maharashtra is directed against the decision of a Full Bench of the High Court of Bombay dealing with an interesting. question under the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 (Act for short). Several prosecutions were launched against the respondents for offences punishable under Ss. 20 and 21 of the Act on the basis of investigation carried out under S. 5 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Code for short) and seizure of documents as a result of search conducted under S. 165 of the Code. Two cases ended in conviction and seven prosecutions resulted in acquittal. Against the conviction two separate appeals were carried to the Court of Sessions which were dismissed. The convicted accused carried two criminal revisions to the High Court. Against acquittal in other prosecutions the State preferred appeals to the High Court. The seven criminal appeals and the two criminal revisions were ultimately referred to a Full Bench for deciding the question raised, viz., as to whether or not the cases in question would be governed by the provisions of S. 22-B of the Act.

2. The Full Bench has come to the following conclusions (State of Maharashtra v. Jayantilal Popatlal Chandrani, 1979 Cri LJ 1231):

(1) By Sections 22A and 22B inserted into the Act by Amending Act 62 of 1960, the application of the provisions of S. 5 (2) of the Code in respect of offences under the Act was not excluded. Therefore, even with these provisions in the Act it was open to the prosecution to make investigation under the Code and in exercise of powers vested under S. 165 thereof search and seizure could be effected;

(2) The manner of search and seizure under the Code and under S. 22A of the Act were different. The new provisions were inserted into the Act with a view to obviating the difficulties in successfully prosecuting the delinquents for offences under the Act;

(3) The presumption contemplated in S. 22B is confined to books of account and other documents seized pursuant to a warrant issued under S. 22A (1) of the Act and not to documents seized in exercise of powers under the Code.

3. The High Court referred to an earlier decision of the Division Bench of the same Court where it had been held that the insertion of the two provisions by Act 62 of 1960 did not have the effect of excluding the application of the Code to prosecutions under the Act but in view of the conclusions indicated above, it did not agree with the earlier view of the Division Bench that the presumption under S. 22B of the Act also extended to documents seized in investigation under the Code without the aid of S. 22A of the Act.

4. Neither counsel, contended before us that the insertion of Ss. 22A and 22B had the effect of excluding the application of S. 5 (2) of the Code. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the Full Bench that the provisions of the Code still apply to investigation of offences under the Act.

5. The only question which has been seriously debated at the Bar is as to whether the presumptions provided under S. 22B of the Act would be available in respect of books of account and documents seized in investigations under the Code where action has not been taken under S. 22A of the Act? The two sections inserted by Act 62 of 1960 provide :

"22A. (1) Any Presidency Magistrate or a magistrate of the first class may, by warrant, authorise any police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector to enter upon and search any place where books of account or other documents relating to forward contracts or options in goods entered into in contravention of the provisions of this Act, may be or may be reasonably suspected to be, and such police officer may seize any such book or document, if in his opinion, it relates to any such forward contract or option in goods;

(2) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, shall, so far as may be, apply to any search or seizure made un