SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1956 Supreme(Bom) 20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Gajendragadkar P.B.and Gokhale B.N., JJ.
Appellants: State
Vs.
Respondent: Raoji Kaloji Kadam
Criminal Appeal No. 1303 of 1955
Decided On: 24.01.1956
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Govt. Pleader
For Respondents/Defendant: D.D. Varde, Adv.

Headnote:Search and seizure - illegal - search Section 65 (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act - search for incriminating material - magistrate convicted accused - appellate court acquitted on the ground that search carried out by the Police Patil was illegal - the Court would have to examine the evidence very carefully, eliminate the possibility that the search may have been result of private malice - However we would like to discourage over-enthusiastic citizens from carrying out illegal searches of this kind - it would be going too far to hold that only because the search is illegal the accused must be acquitted - conviction upheld. ( para 1)

       

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal raises a short question as to the validity of the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, solely on the ground that the search made prior to the institution of the present proceedings was illegal. A charge was levied against the respondent under Section 65 (b), Bombay Prohibition Act.

The learned Magistrate who tried the case was satisfied that the charge had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly the respondent was convicted of the offence charged and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two weeks.

This order was challenged by the respondents before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Kolhapur and the only point which appears to have been raised before the learned Judge was that the search was illegal. The learned Judge accepted this point and we will assume that the learned Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that the search carried out by the police patil was illegal.

But we do not see how from the bare circumstance that the search was illegal it follows that the case against the respondent had not been proved. However much we would like to discourage over-enthusiastic citizens from carrying out illegal searches of this kind, when the matter is brought before the Court, the Court must scrutinise the evidence and find out whether the offence is proved or not.

In dealing with evidence of a search which is illegal, the Court would have to examine the evidence very carefully, eliminate the possibility that the search may have been result of private malice, and then decide whether the search and the evidence relating to the discovery of incriminating material has been proved beyond a reason-able doubt.

In our opinion, it would be going too far to hold that only because the search is illegal the accused must be acquitted. In that view of the matter, we must set aside the order of acquittal passed by the lower appellate Court and send the case back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for disposal in accordance with law.

2. Appeal allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top