( 36 ) THEN, after examining in detail the provision in section 165, the learned Judges observed as follows :

"we have seen that are the requirements of the section which must be complied with before a police officer conducting an investigation could validly institute a search of the nature mentioned in section 165. We have also seen that these provisions must be strictly and substantially complied with. Now let us see on the facts of the present case how far these provisions have been complied with. "thus, the learned Judges held that the provisions of section 165 are mandatory on the ground that they are important safeguards against interference with the rights of a subject by the police, and are conditions which should be fulfilled before a search under section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be made. All the same, the learned judges stated in the last passage quoted above that the provisions must be strictly and substantially complied with. With great respect to the learned Judges, we have to state that there is a well settled distinction between a mandatory requirement and a directory requirement, namely, while the former has to be fulfilled strictly, the latter may be substantially complied with, and if it is sufficient that a requirement is substantially complied with, it would mean that the said requirement is directory and not mandatory. While we respectfully agree with the observation of the learned Judges that it would be sufficient if the provisionsin section 165 (1) are complied with substantially ; we cannot agree with the observation of the learned Judges that the said provisions are to be characterized as mandatory and not directory. Further, it is well settled that even a requirement which is directory has to be obeyed and fulfilled, and it is not as if the requirement, merely because it is directory, may be ignored or violated. In the above decision, it seems to have been assumed that if a provision or requirement is directory, its fulfilment is discretionary and not obligatory. That is why, perhaps, the learned Judges, after stating that the provision in section 165 are important safeguards or conditions which should be fulfilled before a search can be made, characterized them as mandatory and not directory. In our opinion, for the reasons already stated above, the provisions in sub-section (1) of section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are directory and not mandatory, and it would be sufficient if they are complied with substantially.

( 37 ) AS already stated above, the conclusion of ours that the provisions in secrion 165 (1) are directory does not mean that the police officer has a discretion to fulfil or not to fulfil the requirements of the said sub-section. The said requirements should be fulfilled at least substantially before any police officer seeks to exercise the power to search under the section. If in a case there is no such substantial fulfilment of the requirements of the section, the search made by the police would not be one in accordance with the provisions of the section, and would, therefore, be irregular in law.

( 38 ) NOW, the contention of Shri A. S. R. Chari, as already stated, is th the first respondent did not record in writing the grounds of his belief as required by section 165 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and that the factory premises was not one of the premises to be searched, mentioned in the record made by him under sub-section (1) of section 165. Sub-section (1) of section 165 lays down two requirements, viz.

(1) that the police officer should have reasonable grounds for believing-

(A) that anything necessary for the purpose of investigation into an offence may be found in any place; and

(B) that such thing cannot, in his opinion, be otherwise obtained without undue delay; and

(2) he should record in writing the grounds of his belief specifying in such writing, so far as possible, the thing for which search is to be made. The first requirement itself cons

Click Here to Read the rest of this document