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

1978 Supreme(Ker) 64

Judges : P.JANAKI AMMA
Ramakrishnan - Appellant
Versus
V.S.Kuttan Pillai And Another - Respondent
Case No : Crl.M.P. No. 184 of 1977
Decided On : 03/16/1978
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner: T. V. Prabhakaran, Mary Dias and T. Ravi Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondent: C. K. Sivasankara Panicker, P. G. Parameswara Panicker, V. Bhaskara Menon, K. S. Radhakrishnan and K. S. Balakrishnan (for No. 1) and State Prosecutor (for No. 2).

The provisions relating to search contained in S. 93(1) of the Cr.P.C. (Act 2 of 1974) are not hit by Art. 20(3) of the Constitution.

Headnote:

Art. 20(3) - Search Warrant - S. 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act 2 of 1974 - The court discussed the applicability of Art. 20(3) of the Constitution in relation to the issuance of a search warrant under S. 93 of the Cr.P.C. The court held that the provisions relating to search contained in S. 93(1) of the Cr.P.C. (Act 2 of 1974) are not hit by Art. 20(3) of the Constitution.

Judgment :-

The petitioner is the complainant in C.C. 8/77 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alwaye. Offences punishable under Ss. 403, 409, 420 and 477-A read with S. 34 I.P.C. were alleged against the first respondent and 5 others who are the office bearers of the H.M.D.P. Sabha, Moothakunnam. After the filing of the complaint, a search warrant was issued under S. 93 if the Code of Criminal Procedure Act 2 of 1974 for searching the office of the Sabha and for seizing certain documents specified therein. Pursuant to the search warrant, books, documents and papers were produced before the Court. The 2nd accused thereafter filed Crl.M.P. 50 of 1977 for recalling the search warrant and for the return of the seized documents to him.

The contention put forward on his behalf was that the issue of search warrant was illegal and without jurisdiction in view of Art. 20(3) of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on the decisions in State of Gujarat v. Shyamlal (AIR 1965 SC 1251) : (1965 (2) Cri LJ 256), Shiv Dayal v. Sohan Lal (AIR 1970 Punj & Har 468) : (1970 Cri LJ 1517) as also the order in Crl.M.P. No. 249 of 1978 (Ker) of this court. The trial court upheld the contention that the search was without jurisdiction, and ordered return of the documents. The above order is sought to be set aside in the present petition.

2. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that neither Art. 20(3) of the Constitution nor the provisions relating to search in the Cr.P.C. have been contravened in the instant case and the order of the trial court directing the return of the documents is unsustainable in law.

3. Art. 20(3) of the Constitution states :

"No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."

The relevant provisions relating to summoning, search and seizure of documents are contained in Ss. 91 and 93 of the Cr.P.C. which are quoted below :

"91. Summons to produce document or other thing -

(1) Whenever any Court or any officer-in-charge of a police station considers that the production of any documents or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court of officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produced it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.

(2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed -

(a) to affect Ss. 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891), or

(b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority."

xx xx xx

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-sec. (1) of S. 92 has been, or might be, addressed, will not or would not produce the document or thing as required by such summons or acquisition or

(b) where such document or thing as 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 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.

(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, specify in the warrant the particular place or part thereof to which only the search or insp




























































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