KOSHY, J.

This Criminal M.C. was referred to Division Bench by the learned single Judge along with O.P. No. 3484/90. Scope of Section 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the only question involved in this Cri. M.C. and in this judgment we are confining to the above question. Petitioner has filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Punalur as C.C. No. 462/90 complaining commission of fraud, cheating and misappropriation by the accused who is partner of a firm called 'Solve Plastics, Punalur' in which petitioner was also a partner. In the above private complaint, after recording the sworn statement and after numbering the case, petitioner filed Cri. M.P. No. 3484/90 before the Magistrate's Court for search and seizure of certain documents. The documents are the account books, ledgers and other books of the firm which was taken over by the Kerala Financial Corporation in a proceeding under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act. The above petition was dismissed on three grounds : (1) An identical petition was rejected by the Court earlier; (2) After the accused had entered appearance when the case was posted for evidence of the petitioner under Section 244, Cr. P.C., petitioner has no right to file such a petition; and (3) Specific details of the files or records were not mentioned and merely stated that all the account books, ledgers and other books of the firm.

Petition filed before the Magistrate was under Sections 93 and 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 94 deals with search of place suspected to contain stolen property, forged documents etc. The above section can be applied only when the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied after enquiring that there is reason to believe that any place is used for the deposit or sale of stolen property or forged document or other objectionable articles mentioned in the section. Here, admittedly, the above section is not applicable. Petition is not regarding searching a place where stolen or forged documents are kept. There is no material available for the Magistrate in this case to believe that any such place is used for such purpose and the matter is only under Section 244 stage.

As far as Section 93 is concerned, relevant clause is Section 93(1) which is as follows :

"93. When search-warrant may be issued : (1)(a) Where any Court has reason to believe that a person to whom a summons or order under Section 91 or a requisition under sub-section (1) of Section 92 has been, or might be, addressed, will not or would not produce the document or thing as required by such summons or requisition, or

(b) where such document or thing is not known to the Court to be in the possession of any person, or

(c) where the Court considers that the purposes of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code will be served by a general search or inspection, it may issue a search-warrant, and the person to whom such warrant is directed, may search or inspect in accordance therewith and the provisions hereinafter contained."

Since no petition is filed under Section 91 or 92, admittedly, Section 93(1)(a) is not applicable. Section 93(1)(b) is also not applicable as it is applicable only when such documents are not known to be in the possession of any person and that is contrary to the averments in the petition itself. Then Section 91(1)(c) is relevant to a general search or inspection. It cannot be a fishy enquiry. Warrant under Section 91(1)(c) can be issued only with caution. Before issuing a warrant under Section 93(1)(c) there should be sufficient material for issuing such warrant. It may be possible to issue such a warrant in pre-enquiry stage in certain circumstances (See : Hasimara Industries Ltd. v. The Company Law Board, 1976 Cri LJ 50). But, on the facts of this case, the private complaint is registered and after appearance of the accused, it is posted for complainant's evidence under Section 244 when there is no prima facie materi