Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
S. N. Andley, J
S. Balwant Singh – Appellant
Versus
Director of Inspection (Investigation) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal basis for search and seizure (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. conditions regarding reason to believe for search (Para 4 , 5 , 11 , 14) |
| 3. arguments regarding procedure and application of mind (Para 6 , 8 , 12 , 16) |
| 4. relevance of seized documents and authorized search powers (Para 9 , 13 , 18 , 21) |
| 5. analysis of constitutional compliance and justiciability (Para 22 , 23 , 27 , 29) |
| 6. conclusions on the legality of search and use of evidence (Para 30 , 32) |
1. It will not be an unfaithful summary of the history to say that for ages searches and seizure of documents and objects alleged to be incriminating have been responsible for many a battle at the bar. The safeguards of liberty of the subjects in this behalf have been forged out of conflicts between overzealous prosecutors on the one hand and not very nice people on the other. In preserving this liberty of the subjects the Courts always bear in mind that under our Constitution the concept of liberty is wider and the prisoner's dream of freedom from custody alone is not liberty. The present writ petition is directed against searches conducted on 10th August, 1966 at the residence of the petitioners at 35 Rajpur Road, Delhi,
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
