Site icon Legal Vidhiya

SEARCH AND SEIZURE CRPC

Admin
Advertisements
Spread the love

This article is written by Anjali Singh of 7th Semester of BA LLB (Hons) of UPES, Dehradun

ABSTRACT

The legal procedure known as “search and seizure” has long been used by authorities in both civil and criminal cases to thoroughly examine a person or place to find something, take it into safe custody, and later use it as evidence in court. The ‘search and seizure’ provisions are typically used in criminal proceedings, but there are other situations in which they may be applied, such as income tax raids, excise raids, search and seizure under the Information Technology Act, money laundering Act, or perhaps under the orders of the Court. As a result, the seemingly straightforward clause has vast implications and dimensions that demand attention. The various ‘search and seizure’ provisions available under Indian law are examined in this chapter, together with the problems they raise.

Keywords- Civil and Criminal Cases, Evidence, Income Tax Raids, Laundering Act, Indian Law.

INTRODUCTION

The provisions relating to the summons to produce documents or other items, search-warrant provisions, and other regulations relating to search and seizure are covered in Chapter VII, which contains Sections 91–100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This chapter’s rules cover the issuance, service, and execution of summonses and warrants.

A summons is an order from a court for a person to appear before him at a specific time and location. An official summons may be issued in both criminal and civil cases. A warrant is a legally binding document that a judge or magistrate issues allowing a police officer to search, make an arrest, seize property, or engage in other activities related to the administration of justice.

The term “search” describes the operation of government machinery that entails thoroughly going over or scrutinizing a place, a person, an object, etc. to find anything hidden or to make the pieces of a crime’s evidence visible. The police can search for someone, a car, or a location, but only after obtaining the appropriate and legal permission. A “seizure” is a forceful action that abruptly dominates, seizes, removes, or overpowers an object or a person.

PROCEDURE RELATING TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE

According to Section 91, the Court or the officer in charge may issue a written order taking the product of a document or other particulars that are supposedly necessary to conduct a disquisition, inquiry, or legal proceeding. The proprietor of that specific item is needed to misbehave with the request and present it at the time and position specified by the process or order.

Under Section 92 it’s stated that If the law enforcement agencies including the District Magistrate and the High Court suppose that a document, parcel, or anything which is in the guardianship of postal or telegraph authority is essential for the disquisition, trial, or proceedings, also the Postal or telegraph authority has to cleave to the directions given by the court and deliver the document as per the instructions. Any document, package, or item for which a court order is pending may be searched for by the postal or telegraph authority with authorization from the court.

It’s specified in Section 93 when a hunt leave may be issued. First of all, if the Court suspects that the person to whom the summon or order has been transferred, won’t bring the document or the thing which is essential to the proceedings, a leave might be issued against that person. It can also be issued if the Court doesn’t know the person who may be having the document. The Court may designate a specific position or portion of the examination’s duration, and the person in charge of the examination will cleave to the Court’s order exactly as given and not extend the external bounds of the examination. Only the District Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate can grant the hunt of a document that’s in the guardianship of postal or telegraph authority.

By Section 94, searches are conducted at locations where it is believed there may be stolen or falsified property present. If a District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate, or Magistrate of First Class determines after the investigation or the information that a location would have been used for the production of objectionable articles as mentioned and prescribed in this section, or if it would have been used for the deposit or sale of stolen property, he may authorize the Police Officer (above the rank of a constable) by warrant to enter such location with assistance if necessary.

The police are required to search the area by the given warrant, seizing any potentially illicit or stolen property. Until the offender is taken to the magistrate, he must either protect the item or transport it to the magistrate. If he identifies anyone who might be connected to the deposit, sale, or production of the objectionable material or stolen property, he may take them into custody and later bring them before the Magistrate. He may also dispose of the objectionable article in a secure location.

The Court may declare some publications lose under Section 95. Search clearances may be issued by the court for certain publications and The State Government may order that every dupe of any composition, review, document, or book be dropped for the Government as it determines the material which may be punishable under Sections 124A, 153A, 153B, 292, 293 or 295A of the IPC. Any Police Officer may be given the go-ahead to seize those documents by the Magistrate. As per the leave, the Police may enter and search the suspected document on any demesne. The important thing to keep in mind is that the police officer assigned to the hunt can not have a lower rank than Sub-Inspector. The delineations of” review” and” Book” in the Press and Registration of Books Act of 1867 apply to both, and” Document” refers to any visual donation, including a delineation, oil, snap, or another visible medium.

Illustration In the following case Anand Chintamani Dighe v. State of Maharashtra, the State Government seized a notice for the penalty of the book in all forms entitled Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoahe (I’m Nathuram Godse speaking) including Gujarati restatement for reasons that the publication of the said book will disturb public tranquillity, encourage discord or passions of hostility, abomination or ill- will among different groups or communities.

Section 97 is regarding the hunt of a person whose confinement amounts to an offense. However, Sub-Divisional, or first-class Magistrate has a reason to believe the same, If any District. The person to whom the hunt leave is addressed has to search the confined person and if he finds the confined person, he has to take him incontinently before the Magistrate for further proceedings. Section 98 covers the aspects involved in the restoration of a kidnapped woman including a womanish child under the age of 18. Section 99 covers the directions for hunt clearances. The vittles of Sections 38, 70, 72, 74, 77, 78, and 79 are applied to all the hunt clearances issued.

FORMS FOR SUMMONSES AND SEARCH WARRANTS

Form number 10 is for the warrant to search once the officer receives a piece of information regarding the particular offence, once it is submitted. The search of any specific location that is the suspected place of deposit is done using form number 11. Under Form number 30, Special Summons is issued for the person who is accused of committing petty offenses. Summons to witness are executed on form number 33. These are the documents about summonses and search warrants.

OWNERS OF CLOSED AREAS MUST PERMIT SEARCH

If a location that needs to be searched or inspected is closed, the person living there or in charge of it must offer the officer access as described in Section 100 and give him access to all facilities necessary for searching. The Police Officer may act by Section 47(2) if the entry or ingress cannot be achieved.

A person can be searched to find any concealed items if they are suspected of hiding whatever the officer is looking for. A woman can be searched by another woman if she is hiding or concealing herself, but the search must be done strictly by decency. By this provision, it is necessary to contact at least two honorable, self-reliant members of the community or society in question.

Example: The court reiterated that it is a well-established legal principle that the Investigating Agency should support independent witnesses when contraband items are seized while they are available, and that failure to do so in such a situation casts doubt on the prosecution case, in the case of Roop Chand v. the State of Haryana. However, the Police may provide them written instructions to do the same if none of them is willing or able to be a witness to the search that is being done. Any individual who declines to testify without providing a valid reason will be judged to have violated Section 187 of the IPC.

The called residents must be present while the search is being conducted. Witnesses must sign a list of all the items that have been seized along with their whereabouts. Unless otherwise stated in the summons, no witnesses are obliged to appear in court. The occupant is capable of being present during every search.

A copy of the objects that have been seized must be given to the occupant by the police officer, and Section 101 deals with how to dispose of items discovered during a search outside of their area of responsibility. The goods, along with a list of the items that have been seized, must be taken right away to court if a search warrant is granted by a court that has no jurisdiction over the case. A magistrate may order a search to be conducted in his presence under Section 103.

POLICE OFFICER’S AUTHORITY

Although the police must uphold the law and order in society, we have all heard of instances in which police have overstepped their bounds and infringed our rights. Here is a brief explanation of the police’s authority in India regarding searches and seizures.

The Police and other law enforcement authorities are given the authority by the ensuing legislation. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973’s Section 102 grants police officers the authority to take specific items. Any police officer has the authority to confiscate any property that may be known to have been stolen, suspected of having been stolen, or discovered in circumstances that suggest a crime has been committed.

If this police officer is a subordinate of the senior officer in charge of the police station, he must inform him of the seizure. Each police officer is required to notify the relevant magistrate of the seizure promptly. If the confiscated property is such that it cannot be easily transported to the Court, he may grant custody to any person in exchange for the execution of a bond promising to present the property before the Court as and when necessary and to carry out any further orders the Court may issue regarding the disposition of the property.

If the police believe you have illicit items like drugs or other contraband hidden in your home or place of business, they may search those locations without a warrant. In a shared home, the police will examine the common rooms without a warrant but not your private items if you are not there. A towed or impounded vehicle may also be searched by police without a warrant.

LANDMARK JUDGMENTS

According to the ruling in the case of Ramesh v. Laxmi Bai, a son under his father’s custodianship should not be detained or considered to be in an unlawful state of confinement. As a result, no quest leave could be issued for the same.

The procedural validity of quest concurrences was upheld in the case of V.S. Kuttan Pillai v. Ramakrishnan, where it was decided that searching the criminated’s roof did not in any way force him to swear against himself or violate Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution.

In the following case of the State of Maharashtra. Tapas D. Neogy, it was upheld that according to section 102 of the law, a” bank account” is to be determined as property, and the police officer is empowered to seize the operation of such a bank account if these parcels are specifically related to the commission of the offense for which the exploration is being conducted.

In the following case of the State of MP vs. Paltan Mallah, it was decided that validation gathered through an illegal quest is not entirely disregarded unless it has seriously poisoned the criminated. Whether or not to accept analogous validation has always been over to the Courts’ discretion.

 It was decided in the case of Modan Singh vs. the State of Rajasthan that if the executing officer’s validation of chancing the missing objects is satisfying, it is not reasonable to reject the substantiation of recovery because seizure vouchers do not support the prosecution’s story.

The court stated in the case of Matajog Dobey vs. H.C. Bhari that when statutory conditions have not been followed, the credibility of the validation supporting the quest may be weakened and the validation handed may not be believed unless the defendant provides a respectable defense for any non-compliance with the conditions.

CONCLUSION

The ability to search for and seize objects is a crucial capacity for advancing society, but this power comes with unique procedural restrictions because search and seizure is by its very nature a very subjective procedure. To prevent any officer from acting arbitrarily, the officers authorized to conduct a search and seizure have specified authorities, and responsible reporting to a senior official is necessary at each level.

The law must expressly grant the officer the right to search and seize, and they must operate by the established regulations and procedures. Police officers are given the authority to make inquiries, make arrests, search for people, seize people’s property, and even use reasonable force while performing their duties. However, this power must be used within the bounds of the law, and when officers go beyond those bounds, they jeopardize the admissibility of any evidence gathered for prosecution.

REFERENCES

PDF 📄
Exit mobile version