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

1952 Supreme(Ori) 72

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
JAGANNADHA DAS,NARASIMHAM, JJ.
Kalinga Tubes
Versus
D.Suri
Applications Nos.17, 18 and 33 of 1952
Decided On : 02-12-1952

Advocates:
K. Patnaik, for Petitioners; Advocate-General and A.M. Chatterjee, for Opposite Party.

A general search warrant can be issued under S.96(1)(iii), Criminal P.C., if the Magistrate considers that the purposes of any inquiry, trial, or other proceeding under the Code will be served by the general search.

Headnote:

SEARCH WARRANT - Legality - General search - Requirements - Magistrate's duty - Scope of judicial review.

Fact of the Case:

The applicants challenged the legality of search warrants issued by a Magistrate under S.96, Criminal P.C., for the seizure of certain documents and correspondence related to an import license. The main arguments raised were that the warrants were issued to assist a roving inquiry by the Special Police Establishment, New Delhi, that they were of a wide and general character, and that the Magistrate did not apply his mind judicially to the requirements for the valid issue of a search warrant.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the search warrants were not illegal. It observed that a general search warrant can be issued under S.96(1)(iii) if the Magistrate considers that the purposes of any inquiry, trial, or other proceeding under the Code will be served by the general search. The Court further held that the Magistrate had applied his mind judicially to the materials before him and that the materials were such as could reasonably satisfy him with reference to the requirements of the law.

Issues: 1. Whether the search warrants were issued to assist a roving inquiry by the Special Police Establishment, New Delhi? 2. Whether the search warrants were of a wide and general character? 3. Whether the Magistrate applied his mind judicially to the requirements for the valid issue of a search warrant?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the search warrants were not issued to assist a roving inquiry by the Special Police Establishment, New Delhi. It observed that the Magistrate had considered the materials before him and had come to the conclusion that a general search was necessary for the purposes of an investigation into the alleged cheating under S.420, Penal Code. The Court further held that this opinion was not unreasonable on the materials before the Magistrate. 2. The Court held that the search warrants were not of a wide and general character. It observed that the warrants were issued for the seizure of specific documents and correspondence related to an import license. The Court further held that the Magistrate had specified the things to be seized as far as possible, as required under S.165(1), Criminal P.C. 3. The Court held that the Magistrate had applied his mind judicially to the requirements for the valid issue of a search warrant. It observed that the Magistrate had gone through the diary of the Inspector and the instructions issued to him by the Superintendent of Special Police Establishment, Delhi, and had come to the conclusion that a general search was necessary for the purposes of an investigation into the alleged cheating under S.420, Penal Code. The Court further held that the Magistrate had recorded his reasons for issuing the search warrants in his order.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the applications challenging the legality of the search warrants.

Judgement

JAGANNADHA DAS, C. J. :- These applications were previously heard on the 21st and 22nd of October and we pronounced orders on 27-10-52 (See AIR 1953 ORISSA 49) granting to the applicants one of the prayers which they made in their applications viz., a direction for the issue of copies of certain documents, which the learned Magistrate held the applicants not to be entitled to. We felt that in the light of the additional material that may be available to the applicants on getting those copies it would be desirable to hear further arguments with reference to the legality of the searches which was the second question that was raised. We accordingly directed that the applications should be posted for further hearing. They have therefore come up again before us and we proceed to consider the question of the legality of the searches.

2. It is necessary to note at the outset that when the applications were first heard on the 21st October, the advocate for the petitioners sought to put forward an additional ground of fact said to have a bearing on the legality of the searches. A petition raising it was filed on 17th October 1952. The additional ground was that since the searches were conducted by an officer of the Special Police Establishment, Delhi, they were illegal, inasmuch as the requisite consent of the State Government of Orissa under S.6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, enabling him to exercise powers and jurisdiction of a police officer in Orissa State was not previously obtained. Since these applications were filed as early as on 21-6-52 and the hearing date had been fixed from time to time at the request of the advocates on both sides an additional ground of fact at such a late stage could not be entertained. The affidavit in support of the applications made only a vague statement that the petitioners got the information about the absence of requisite consent "recently" but did not disclose when and how that information was obtained. There was therefore no adequate ground for entertaining this belated application raising a fresh and disputed question of fact. In the circumstances, we intimated at the original hearing of these applications on the 21st October that we were not prepared to allow that fresh allegation of fact to be relied on for the purpose of challenging the legality of the searches.

3. It may also be stated that so far as O.J.Cs. Nos.17 and 18 of 1952 are concerned, as already previously noticed in our order dated 27-10-52, no articles were recovered at the searches with which these applications are concerned. In the normal course, we would have declined straightaway to entertain any further arguments regarding the legality of the searches on these two applications inasmuch as there was no relief by way of return of seized articles which this Court could grant in respect of those applications. It is not the function of this Court to exercise its jurisdiction by way of revision or issue of writ for the mere purpose of granting a declaration if it cannot be followed up by the grant of effective relief. We have however allowed these applications also to remain pending after we pronounced our previous order dated 27th October inasmuch as the question of the legality of the same searches was necessary to be determined with reference to O.J.C. 33/52 in which certain articles were recovered which could be directed to be returned if the search was found to be illegal.

4. The application for the search-warrant in this case was made by the Inspector, Special Police Establishment, Ministry of Home Affairs. Government of India, New Delhi. That application as well as the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate directing the issue of the search-warrants show that the warrants were issued under S.96, Criminal P.C., for the seizure of certain

"documents and correspondence with the overseas suppliers in respect of import license No.602626/51 CCI. and documents in relation to the sale and d









































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