IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Divakar Singh
Versus
A. Ramamurthi Naidu
Decided On : 15 March, 1918
Search - Criminal Procedure Code - The court held that the search conducted by the investigating Police Officer was legal and not illegal under Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as it was a specific search for stolen property and made bona fide.
Fact of the Case:
The Sub-Inspector of Guntur conducted a search, and the defendant, as the investigating Police Officer, was alleged to have conducted an illegal search for stolen property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the search conducted by the investigating Police Officer was legal and not illegal under Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as it was a specific search for stolen property and made bona fide. The court also dismissed the contention that the Police have no further powers of investigation after sending a report of investigation under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the search conducted by the investigating Police Officer and the extent of the Police's powers of investigation under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was held to authorize a specific search for stolen property and not just a general search. The court also emphasized that the number of investigations into a crime is not limited by law.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed with costs.
1. Upon the finding that the Sub-Inspector of Guntur conducted the search there can be no question of defendants jurisdiction over the place searched. The finding is objected to on the ground that no specific issue was raised on the point, but the plea that the defendant did not himself conduct the search, but only searched the house as the Sub-Inspectors assistant was specifically raised in the written statement and comes within the scope of issue I. Even otherwise it is questionable whether defendant, as investigating Police Officer, was not attached to Guntur Police station by the orders of his superiors but this point does not seem to have been considered.
2. The contention chiefly relied on by Mr. Ramadoss is that the search was wholly illegal inasmuch as Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not give authority to search for stolen property. This is a somewhat startling proposition put in this way, and it is based on the rulings in Bajrangi Gope v. Emperor (1910) I.L.R. 38 C. 304 and Prankhang v. King Emperor (1912) 16 C.W.N. 1078. These two cases were considered in Bissar Misser v. Emperor (1913) I.L.R. 41 C. 261 where it was held that they were only authority for the proposition that Section 165, Criminal Procedure Code does not authorise a general search for stolen property, as opposed to a search for specific stolen property. This latter form of search, which is the form in the case now under our consideration, was expressly held to be legal and it was remarked that its legality had never been questioned since the case decided in Mahomed Jackariah & Co. v. Ahmed Mahonted (1887) I.L.R. 15 C 109. We agree in their view and hold that the present search was not illegal. It has been found to have been made bona fide and therefore plaintiff is not entitled to damages. Another contention is put forward that when a report of investigation has been sent in under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code the Police have no further powers of investigation, but this argument may be briefly met by the remark that the number of investigations into a crime is not limited by law and that when one has been completed another may be begun on further information received.
3. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.