Order.- The petitioner is the complainant in C.C. No. 8 of 1977 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alwaye. Offences punishable under sections 403, 409, 420 and 477-A read with section 34, Indian Penal Code were alleged against the first respondent and 5 others who are the office bearers of the H.M.D.F. Sabha, Moothakunnam. After the filing of the complaint, a search warrant was issued under section 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (II of 1974) for searching the office of the Sabha and seizing certain documents specified therein.

Pursuant to the search warrant, books, documents and papers were produced before the Court. The 2nd accused thereafter filed Cr. M.P. No. 50 of 1977 for recalling the search warrant and for the return of the seized documents to him. The contention put forward on behalf of the respondent was that the issue of search warrant was illegal and without jurisdiction in view of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on the decisions in State of Gujarat v. Shyamalal1, Shiv Dayal v. Sohan Lal2, as also the order in Cr.M.P. No. 249 of 1976 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 this present petition.

2. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that neither Article 20(3) of the Constitution nor the provisions relating to search in the Code of Criminal Procedure 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. Article 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 sections 91 and 93 of the Criminal Procedure Code which are quoted below:

“91. Summons to produce document or other things-(1) Whenever any Court or any officer-in-charge of a police station considers that the production of any document 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 or 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 produce 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 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 sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act (I of 1872), or the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, (XIII 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;”.

* * * *

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.

(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, specify in the warrant the particular place or part thereof to which only the search or inspection shall extend; and the person charged with the exe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document