Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Sen, J., Khundkar, J.
K. Hoshide & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Emperor - Respondent
Decided On : 31-08-1939
Search Warrant - Interpretation of Section 96, Criminal P.C. - 96(1) - 96(1)(c) - 96(1)(d)
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the issuance of a search warrant by the Chief Presidency Magistrate based on a letter from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, Calcutta, regarding systematic undervaluation of goods. The police seized documents belonging to a trading company, causing significant loss and inconvenience to the company's business.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Magistrate had issued the warrant based on a misconception of the law, as there was no pending inquiry or trial at the time of the application for the search warrant. The court emphasized that a search warrant should not be issued merely to aid an investigation and should only be issued when there is an inquiry pending or about to be made.
Issues: The main issue was the propriety of the search warrant issued by the Chief Presidency Magistrate and whether it was justified under Section 96(1)(c) of the Criminal P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Magistrate's action was not justified under Section 96(1)(c) as there was no pending inquiry or trial at the time of the warrant issuance. The court emphasized that a search warrant should only be issued when it serves the purposes of an inquiry, trial, or other proceeding under the Code.
Final Decision: The court made the rule absolute and ordered the return of the seized documents to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Sen, J. - The point involved in this rule relates to the propriety of an order of the-Chief Presidency Magistrate issuing a search warrant u/s 96, Criminal P.C. The facts briefly are these. On 4th April 1939, Mr. P.K. Mukherjee, Assistant Commissioner of the Calcutta Police in the Detective Department, addressed a letter to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta. As the decision of this matter will depend largely on the effect and interpretation of this letter I reproduce it in full below:
(A)
1. Messrs. Toyo Menka Kaisha Ltd., 4, Clive Ghat Street.
2. Pannalal Sagarmal, 112, Cross Street.
3. Meghraj Kanaiya Lal, 2nd floor, 113, Monohar Das Katra.
4. B.M. Kharwar, 1st floor, 161, Harrison Road.
5. Khanna and Co., 35, Cross Street.
6. Jewan Ram Ganga Ram, 35, Cross Street.
7. Bisweswar Lal Chiman Lal, Groundfloor, 174, Harrison Road.
8. Hazarimal Hiralal, 60, Cross Street, and 148, Cotton Street.
9. Jewanram Periwal, 1st floor, 113, Monohar Das Katra.
(B)
1. Bholaram Mussuddi, P. 22, New Jagannath Ghat Road,
2. Kanaya Lal Tharar, 1, New Jagannath Ghat Road.
3. Nagarmal Bhawalka and 4, Indra Chand Bhawalka, 10, Vivekananda Boad, 3rd floor.
To
The Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta.
Sir,
I have the honour to submit that information has been received from the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, to the effect that systematic undervaluation of cotton piece goods assessable to duty on market value, resulting in considerable loss of revenue to the Government, is being committed by the marginally noted, parties (marked A) assisted by and in conspiracy with four persons named in the margin (marked B) for a number of years, in contravention of the Sea Customs Act and to cheat the Government.
I therefore pray that search warrant may be issued to search the firms and residences of these persons immediately, to seize documents, account books and other papers of the years 1936-39.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your most obedient servant,
P.K. Mukherjee.
Assistant Commissioner of Police
Detective Department, Calcutta,
4th April 1939.
2. Acting on this letter and on no further materials, so far as we are aware, the learned Magistrate issued a search warrant which is reproduced below:
Bengal Form No. 3919, High Court Criminal Process No. 10. Warrant to Search After Information of a Particular Offence (No. 8, Schedule 5, Act 5, 1898) (Section 96, Criminal P.C.).
(1) Name and designation of the police officer or other person or persons who is or are to execute the warrant.
(2) Information has been laid or complaint has been made.
(3) Commission or suspected commission.
(4) Mention the offence concisely.
(5) Specify the thing clearly.
(6) Now being made or about to be made.
(7) Offence or suspected offence.
(8) The thing specified.
(9) Describe the house or place or part thereof, to which the search is to be confined.
To (1) Assistant Commissioner of Police Detective Department-Whereas (2) information has been received before me of the (3) commission of the offence of (4) Sea Customs Act and conspiracy to cheat Government and it has been made to appear to me that the production of (5) documents, account books and other papers for the year 1936-37, 1937-38, 1938-39 is essential to the enquiry (6) now being made into the said (7) offence. This is to authorise and require you to search for the said (8) documents etc. in the (9) firm of Messrs. Toyo Menka Kaisha Ltd. 4, Clive Ghat Street, and if found to produce the same forth-with before this Court, returning this warrant with an endorsement certifying what you have done under it immediately upon its execution. Given under my hand the seal of the Court, this 4th day of April 1939.
(Sd.) Rule Gupta,
Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta,
Calcutta 4th April, 1939.
(Return on the back of the search warrant duly executed with the properties seized as per search list attached.)
(Sd.) S.N. Mukherjee
Inspector D.D. 4th April, 1939.
3. I wish to emphasize the fact that the learned Magistrate states in the warrant that he was issuing
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
