Law On Search Warrants: Provisions in Criminal Procedure Code & Allied Laws

Law on search warrants
PROVISIONS IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE & ALLIED LAWS

V. S. Kuttan Pillai vs Ramakrishnan & Anr on 18 September, 1979
1980 AIR 185, 1980 SCR (1) 673
The complainant (respondent no. 1 ) made an application
before a magistrate for the issue of a warrant for the
search and seizure of certain books and documents of a Sabha
of which the accused were office-bearers. After the seizure
of the books and documents, on the application of one of the
accused persons, the magistrate directed their return to the
persons from whom they were recovered. In the respondent
revision petition the High Court held that the provisions
contained in s. 93(1) of the Cr.P.C. were not hit by Art.
20(3) of the Constitution.
Section 93(1)(c) comprehends a situation where a
search warrant can be issued as the court is unaware of not
only the person but even the place where the documents may
be found and that a general search is necessary. Therefore,
power of the court under this clause cannot be cut down by
importing some of the requirements of cl. (b) of the s.
93(1).
In the instant case although the order of the
magistrate waslaconic certain important aspects could not
be over-looked. The objects of the Sabha were of a general
charitable nature. An earlier search warrant was quashed by
the High Court. When the complainant made more serious
allegation a search warrant was issued to conduct a search
of the institution. The office premises, the books and other
documents of the Sabha could not be said to be in possession
of any individual accused. They were in the possession of
the institution. A search of such a public place under the
authority of a general search warrant can easily be
sustained under s. 93(1)(c). Viewed this way there was no
illegality in the Magistrate's order.
M. P. Sharma And Others vs Satish Chandra, District ... on 15 March, 1954
Equivalent citations: 1954 AIR 300, 1954 SCR 1077
That the provision for the search warrant under

the first alternative of a. 96(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure does not offend art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.
A search and seizure is only a temporary interference with
the right to hold the property searched and the articles
seized. Statutory recognition in this behalf is a necessary
and reasonable restriction and cannot per se be considered
to be unconstitutional.
A compelled production of incriminating documents by a
person against whom a First Information Report has been made
is testimonial compulsion within the meaning of art. 20(3)
of the Constitution. But a search and seizure of a document
under the provisions of as. 94 and 96 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is not a compelled production thereof
within the meaning of art. 20 (3) and hence does not offend
the said Article.
A power of search and seizure is, in any system of jurisprudence, an
overriding power of the State for the protection of social security and that
power is necessarily
regulated by law. When the Constitution makers have thought
fit not to subject such regulation to constitutional limitations by
recognition of the fundamental right to
privacy, analogous to the American Fourth Amendment, there
is no justification for importing into it, a totally different fundamental
right by some process of strained construction.
State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (1994) 3 SCC 299 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 634
The common question that arises for consideration is whether any arrest and
search of a person or search of a place without conforming to the provisions of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act' for
short), becomes illegal and consequently vitiates the conviction. The trial court in
these cases acquitted the accused on the ground that the arrest, search and seizure
were in violation of some of the relevant and mandatory provisions of the NDPS
Act. The High Court declined to grant leave to appeal against the said order of
acquittal. Questioning the same the State of Punjab has filed these special leave
petitions and appeals. In a few cases, the convicted accused also have questioned
their convictions on the ground that arrest and trial were illegal. Since a common
question arises in all these matters, they are being disposed of by a common
judgment.
"51. Provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to apply to warrants,
arrests, searches and seizures.- The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act, to all warrants issued and arrests, searches and seizures made
under this Act.“ (NDPS Act)
One another important question that arises for consideration is whether

failure to comply with the conditions laid down in section 50 of the ndps
act by the empowered or authorised officer while conducting the search,
affects the prosecution case.
In most of the cases filed by the State of Punjab, arrest or search was carried out by police
officers who were not empowered and in such a situation, as held above, compliance of
Section 50 did not arise. But the cases have been thrown out on the ground that Section 50 has
not been complied with in all these cases.

Law On Search Warrants: Provisions in Criminal Procedure Code & Allied Laws

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Law On Search Warrants: Provisions in Criminal Procedure Code & Allied Laws

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Law On Search Warrants: Provisions in Criminal Procedure Code & Allied Laws

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Law on search warrants

PROVISIONS IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE & ALLIED LAWS

That the provision for the search warrant under

One another important question that arises for consideration is whether

You might also like