TMI Blog1972 (2) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to go there as a result of which he is likely to suffer heavy loss. He, therefore, offered to give currency notes which may be signed and requested that a pro- per person may be given to him to arrest the Barrier Inspector Sharma and his staff and save him from tile corruption. Oil this application, Circle Inspector Rana Ranjit Singh, P.W. 1 was asked to attend to it. Accordingly, he along with Jagat Singh, his Driver and Panchas Hardeet Singh, P.W. 6 and Munna Lal, P.W. 7 pro- ceeded to, Multai Barrier by truck to arrange for a trap and catch the culprits red-handed. On arriving at the Barrier Gate, 4 currency notes of ₹ 10 each were given by Jagat Singh, P.W. 2, to his Driver who was sent to the Barrier office along with P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 to give the same, if demanded, and after they were accepted an agreed signal was to be given. Accordingly, the Driver went to the Barrier office along with P.W. 6 Hardeet Singh and P.W. 7 Munna Lal and after the amount was received by accused Narayan Singh, P.W. 6 Hardeet Singh came out of the office and gave the agreed signal. Immediately, P.W. 1 Ranjit Singh proceeded- to the office and when the accused Narayan Singh saw him coming, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, Station Officer, P.W. 8 who had come there went to telephone. Thereafter P.W. 1 gave a written information, Ex. P-4 on 2-6-65, as follows :- It is submitted that today-at 7.25 a.m. I had arranged the trap at the traffic barrier Multai. After taking the search of the Barrier currency notes of ₹ 40 were found beneath the over-coat. While I was recording the seizure-memo of these notes, Shri Sharma, Station Officer Traffic abused me and uttered bad words. Thereafter, he said to me, You have no powers of trap . I repeatedly told him that recently the State Government have authorized the Circle Inspectors for trapping. But he did not agree and he created- obstruction while I was discharging my duties. He grappled with me. This act of the Sub- Inspector traffic barrier falls under section 353 Indian Penal Code. At that time many persons were present on the spot. Kindly offence be registered and a challan be put up in the Court according to law . We may here state, and it is not denied, that P.W. 1 did not record in writing the grounds of his belief that anything necessary for the purposes of investigation into any offence cannot in his opinion be obtained without undue d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uirements of section 165 to be complied with have been set out and analyzed. Even so, to further contend that the appellants were entitled to act in the manner they did merely because the search was illegal, would be to confer a licence and afford them an unwarranted excuse to commit each and every criminal act. The provisions of section 165 deal with search and seizure. The non-conformity with any of the requirements of that provision must be confined to that part of the investigation which relates to the actual search and seizure but once the search and seizure is complete that provision ceases to have any application to the subsequent steps in the investigation. All cases cited deal with the situation arising out of the actual search and seizure alone. it may be that an obstruction during the course of a search not conducted in conformity with the provisions of sec. 165, Cr. P.C. might be justified but there is no warrant for the further submission that the person in whose premises a search is made or from whom articles are seized is entitled to act in the manner the appellants have acted in preventing P.W. 1 from discharging his official duties. The decisions of this Court to w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... call upon two or more respectable inhabitants (at least one,, of whom shall be a woman) of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate, to attend and witness the search. It was contended that since these provisions have not been complied with, the conviction of the appellant was illegal. The High Court in that case was of the view that the power to conduct the search was derived from the statute and not from the recording of the reasons and, therefore the search was not rendered illegal on account of the contravention of sec. 15(1) of the Act, nor was there any provision in law which rendered the evidence of the Pancha witnesses inadmissible even though sec. 15 I had been contravened. In this view, it did not agree with the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh v. Uttaravalli Nageshwararao(A.I.R. 1965, A.P. 176.), which held that the directions contained in sub-sec. 2 were of a mandatory nature. After referring to the State of Rajasthan v. Rahman's([1960] 1 S.C.R. 991.) case, Grover, J. pointed out that that case could not be, of much assistance to the appellant because no question was involved in the case before them of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... again contended that all that the appellants did was to request P.W. 1 to give them in writing that a search was made which they were entitled to ask. To put it thus is to make the act an innocuous one but considered in the light of the inexorable facts as established in this case, clearly make the acts of the appellants culpable. By no stretch of logic or reason can the justification for obstruction during the course of a search in contravention of the provisions of sec. 165 entitle a person to force a public servant or any other person to do acts contrary to their volition. It may be mentioned that section 103 which is applicable to searches under section 165, Cr. P.C. by virtue of clause 4 thereof, requires the person conducting the search to prepare a list of the things taken into possession and give the person searched a copy of that list. It was exactly that which was, being done by P.W. 1 when he prepared a seizure-memo in which the details of the currency notes were written but he was prevented from completing it by the appellants asking Narayan Singh in whose presence in the office they were seized by not to sign it. In these circumstances when it appeared that the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
