Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Harries, S. R. Das Gupta
MANICKLAL MONDAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Criminal Revn 1195 Of 1951
Decided On : MARCH 21, 1952
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 96 - SEARCH WARRANT - GROUNDS FOR ISSUANCE - RECORDING OF REASONS - NECESSITY - PRIVATE DEFENCE - APPLICABILITY - OFFENCE COMMITTED AFTER REMOVAL OF SEIZED PROPERTY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were convicted under Sections 353 and 332 of the Penal Code for assaulting a police officer executing a search warrant and obstructing him in the discharge of his duty. The search warrant was issued under Section 96 of the Criminal Procedure Code to search for certain gold ornaments and documents lying in an iron safe in the house of one Narendra Nath Mondal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the search warrant was validly issued as the Magistrate had ample materials to believe that the person to whom a summons under Section 94 might have been issued would not have produced the document or thing required to be produced. The court also found that the room where the search warrant was executed was the room belonging to Narendra Nath Mondal and not the petitioners, and therefore the petitioners had no right of private defence.
Issues: 1. Whether the search warrant was illegal due to the Magistrate's failure to record reasons for believing that the person would not produce the document if served with a summons under Section 94? 2. Whether the room where the search warrant was executed was the room belonging to the petitioners, giving them the right of private defence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 96 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not require the Magistrate to record reasons in writing for believing that the person would not produce the document if served with a summons under Section 94. The Magistrate must be satisfied that there is a necessity for the search warrant to be issued, and in this case, there were ample materials on which the Magistrate could come to that conclusion. 2. The evidence showed that Narendra Nath Mondal pointed out the room as belonging to him to the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, and therefore the petitioners had no right of private defence.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the Rule was discharged. The court declined to interfere with the sentences imposed on the petitioners.
( 1 ) THE petitioners before us are two in number. The petitioner No. 1 has been convicted under Section 353 and Section 332, Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to rigorous imprisonment for three months respectively --both the sentences to run consecutively. The petitioner No. 2 has been convicted under Section 353, Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to rigorous imprisonment for three months. The case was originally tried by a Magistrate, First Class, Uluberia and he found the petitioners guilty of the aforesaid charges and sentenced them as aforesaid. Against the said convictions there was an appeal to the Additional Sessions Judge of Howrah, but the appeal was dismissed except that the sentences on petitioner No. 1 were directed to run concurrently. It is against the said order of the Additional Sessions Judge that the present application in revision has been made before us.
( 2 ) THE case for the prosecution against the petitioners is as follows.
( 3 ) THERE was a case instituted under Section 107, Criminal P. C. on 18-3-1950 against the petitioner No. 1 Maniklal Mandal and others. A search warrant was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Uluberia on 20-3-1950 authorising the Officer in charge, Shyampur Police Station, to search for certain gold ornaments and documents lying in an iron safe in the house of one Narendra Nath Mondal of Naul. The said search warrant was endorsed in favour of one Someswar Bhattacharyya, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (P. W. 1) for execution on 21-3-1950. The said Someswar Bhattacharyya went to Naul to execute the search warrant in company with some search witnesses, and when they reached the house to Narendra Nath Mondal they called Narenda Nath Mondal and explained to him the contents of the search warrant in presence of the search witnesses. The room in question where the iron safe was to be searched was found locked and the police officer asked him to open the room. Naren Mondal thereupon made certain statements to A. S. I. and in pursuance of that statement the petitioner Manicklal and another person Jaharlal Mondal were called. The police officer explained to them the contents of the search warrant and asked them to open the room, but they refused. The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police then proceeded to break open the padlock when the petitioner Tulsirani Mondal, wife of the petitioner Manicklal Mondal, came near him and showed him a 'katari' and threatened him. She was however persuaded to leave the place. Someswar Bhattacharyya then broke the padlock by means of a 'sapol' and entered the room after observing all the formalities of the search. He seized the iron safe and with the help of two pieces of bamboo had the same carried from, the place where it was found towards the house of one Debendranath Mondal. The labourers who were carrying the iron safe, after they had gone some distance, felt tired and were resting. It was then that the accused Manicklal Mondal suddenly came up to the spot, took the piece of bamboo and attacked the Officer Someswar Bhattacharyya with the same. The petitioner No. 2 Tulsirani Mondal also came up in the meantime to the place of occurrence with a 'sapol' and she made it over to her husband Manicklal Mondal. The other accused Jaharlal Mondal came there with a 'ballam' to attack the complainant. There was a scuffle and ultimately Manicklal was overpowered and arrested. On these facts the petitioners had been charged under the sections to which I have referred, and they were found guilty and convicted as aforesaid.
( 4 ) MR. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the petitioners urged several points in support of the petition. In the first place he urged that the search warrant was illegal in view of the provisions of Section 96, Criminal P. C. His contention is that the Magistrate did not record in writing before he issued the search warrant under Section 96, that he had rea
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
