Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
In criminal proceedings, adherence to procedural safeguards is crucial to ensure fairness and legality. A common grievance arises when parties question whether the Magistrate has not followed the proper procedure by tallying with the seals. This issue often surfaces in complaints involving evidence handling, forgery allegations, or process issuance. But does a Magistrate typically have a duty to personally tally seals? Generally, no—seal verification is context-specific and usually falls to other officials. However, Magistrates must strictly follow protocols like those under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), particularly Section 202, especially when dealing with accused outside their jurisdiction.
This post delves into key judicial findings, procedural obligations, and related contexts like evidence sealing in NDPS and food adulteration cases. We'll clarify misconceptions around seal tallying while highlighting remedies for lapses.
Legal documents reveal that Magistrates often falter not on seal tallying, but on mandatory steps under CrPC Section 202 when issuing notice or process to an accused outside their jurisdiction. Postponement of process issuance and conducting an inquiry or investigation is required to check sufficient grounds for proceeding. No direct reference mandates Magistrates to tally seals in standard procedures; instead, lapses in jurisdiction checks and cognizance orders lead to orders being set aside. Election documents attribute seal verification to Returning Officers, not Magistrates. Shishir Joshipura VS State of Maharashtra - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 1466
For instance, in a complaint by a public servant (Inspector, Legal Metrology), the Magistrate issued notices without verifying jurisdiction or postponing process, violating the proviso to Section 202. The court noted: the learned Magistrate had not postponed the issuance of process, though, it was apparent that the accused was not residing within the jurisdiction of learned Magistrate. Therefore, mandatory part... ought to have been adhered to. Shishir Joshipura VS State of Maharashtra - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 1466
Upon receiving a complaint, even from a public servant (where complainant examination is waived per proviso to Section 200), Magistrates must assess under Section 201 and, critically, Section 202 for out-of-jurisdiction cases. The proviso states: shall... postpone the issue of process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation... Failure here rendered the process defective, leading to quashing. Shishir Joshipura VS State of Maharashtra - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 1466
In another case reinforcing Section 202, the court quashed an order and directed fresh inquiry: I, therefore, have no other option except to quash the order and direct the learned Magistrate to take up the inquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C. afresh... Govinda Acharya VS State of Orissa - 2017 Supreme(Ori) 860
The query on tallying with the seals doesn't align with Magistrate procedures in the primary case. Seal verification typically occurs in evidence contexts:
Magistrates oversee complaints but don't routinely tally seals; lapses in chain of custody (e.g., Abkari Act samples) undermine cases via acquittal. Prabhu Prakash, S/o.Enry D'souza vs State Of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 2793
High Courts frequently quash notices for procedural flaws: The learned Magistrate is directed to adhere to the proper procedure as stated above and thereafter proceed with the matter. Revisional courts (Section 397) must correct errors. Similar directives appear in medical negligence and domestic violence cases where Magistrates skipped steps. Shishir Joshipura VS State of Maharashtra - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 1466Bachu Miah VS Ranu Begum - 2015 Supreme(Tri) 61MUKESH KUMAR SUNDRIYAL VS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - 2013 Supreme(UK) 270
In sessions-triable cases, Section 202(2) proviso mandates complainant witness production, but not all need examination. Govinda Acharya VS State of Orissa - 2017 Supreme(Ori) 860
While Magistrates aren't tasked with seal tallying—that's for specialists in evidence or elections—strict CrPC compliance, especially Section 202, is non-negotiable. Failures lead to quashing, protecting rights. Key takeaway: Always verify jurisdiction before process; document meticulously.
This post provides general insights based on cited cases and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific matters.
that the seals were intact, however, the Magistrate has not followed the proper procedure by tallying with the seals with the sample seal chit, as it was never produced before him. ... In reply, learned State counsel has submitted that before effecting the recovery, a notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act was duly served upon the appellant, informing him about his legal right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and ....
It is pertinent to note that the date stamp of the jurisdictional Magistrate is not seen affixed in Exhibits P1 to P5. ... complying the procedure laid down in sub- section (2), the authorised officer shall obtain prior permission of the Court or Magistrate before initiating proceedings under sub- section (2). ... on the sample have not been tampered with. ... It was further held that where the sample changed several hands before reaching the chemical examiner, the prosecution has a duty to examine the ....
complying the procedure laid down in sub- section (2), the authorised officer shall obtain prior permission of the Court or Magistrate before initiating proceedings under sub-section (2). ... The evidence of PW1 in cross examination shows that he has not obtained the permission of the Magistrate for destroying the remaining wash. PW1 also admitted that he has not prepared any memo before destroying the remaining wash at the place of occurrence. ... It was further held that where the sample changed sever....
[2021 (5) KHC 347] shows the steps to be followed by the officer collecting the sample, thondi clerk who is authorised to receive the thondi and the measures to be ensured by the chemical examiner.
the procedure laid down in sub- section (2), the authorised officer shall obtain prior permission of the Court or Magistrate before initiating proceedings under sub-section (2). ... It was further held that where the sample changed several hands before reaching the chemical examiner, the prosecution has a duty to examine the various officials who handled the sample to prove that while in their custody, the seals on the sample have not been tampered with. ... PW3, the independent witness examined by the prosecution, turne....
In his complaint, the second respondent has stated that some affidavits were produced before him as if they were attested by him and the signatures contained in those affidavits were found to be forged and the official seals were not tallying with the original seals of the Court and, therefore, he suspected ... The present complaint given by the second respondent on coming to know that the signatures were forged on certain affidavits and the officials seals of the Court were also not #....
In the present case the procedure relating to sealing of the samples and sending them to the chemical analyst has been scrupulously followed. Therefore the second point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant has also no substance. ... He tallied the specimen seal with the seal on the packet. both the seals were tallying. On analysis he found the commodity in the sample as opium. There was presence of Morphin to the extent of 10. 55. His report is Exhibit P-7. ... It was held that the said search cannot be said t....
In the present case the procedure relating to sealing of the samples and sending them to the chemical analyst has been scrupulously followed. Therefore the second point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant has also no substance. ... He tallied the specimen seal with the seal on the packet. both the seals were tallying. On analysis he found the commodity in the sample as opium. There was presence of Morphin to the extent of 10.55. His report is Exhibit P-7. ... It was held that the said search cannot be said to....
Shri Sharma further pointed out that the evidence on record does not prove that the seals, which were affixed on the sample bottles were desiferable and, therefore, the Public Analyst had the opportunity of tallying the seal, which were affixed on the sample bottle with specimen of the seal which according ... When the prosecution did not produce the material which was placed before the sanctioning authority for the purpose of enabling the sanctioning authority to apply its mind and to arrive at proper ....
Shri Sharma further pointed out that the evidence on record does not prove that the seals, which were affixed on the sample bottles were desiferable and, therefore, the Public Analyst had the opportunity of tallying the seal, which were affixed on the sample bottle with specimen of the seal which according ... When the prosecution did not produce the material which was placed before the sanctioning authority for the purpose of enabling the sanctioning authority to apply its mind and to arrive at proper ....
I, therefore, have no other option except to quash the order and direct the learned Magistrate to take up the inquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C. afresh calling upon the complainant to examine all witnesses of her choice, even if such witnesses had been examined earlier under section 200, Cr.P.C. and shall thereafter proceed with the case in accordance with law.” In view of such difference in both the sections, in my considered view, even if the complainant and the witnesses are examined under section 200, Cr.P.C., if an inquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C. is taken up, the complainant and witn....
Some seals produced by the accused before the investigating officer were not seized as he found the same not tallying with the seals on the questioned counter foils of Forms ST-35. (vi) PW-6, Dayatri Dass, the accountant when questioned about the stamps of the Company, he gave an evasive reply that he did not remember of having any stamp (seal) with Manak Vihar address. (v) The seals used by PW-1, the complainant for his business were not produced for comparison and merely because the questioned counter foils of Forms ST-35 had address of Manak Vihar where the complainant h....
In the present case, in the operative portion of the order in question, there is no finding that domestic violence has taken place. We also find that the respondent-husband was not given an adequate opportunity to put forth his case. Therefore, the order under challenge is not a legal order. As already held above, the proper procedure has not been followed by the Magistrate.
Thus, the proper procedure, which ought to have been followed by the learned Magistrate, was not followed in the instant case. It has been said earlier and is being said at the cost of repetition, that the learned Magistrate was competent to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., had he not issued notice to the informant, who in turn, made a request to get his and his witnesses’ statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C.
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
