Skip to main content

Proper procedure for executing a search warrant in a jurisdiction outside of issuing court

In Angel Click v. State of Karnataka, the petitioners were rice traders in Nagpur (Maharashtra). Their godowns in Nagpur were raided by the Karnataka Police under the authority a search and seizure warrant issued by the Judicial Magistrate, Gangavathi (Karnataka). A considerable number of rice bags of a particular brand were seized and taken away by the Karnataka Police from their godowns. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Bombay High Court.

Territorial jurisdiction of High Courts

Respondent Nos.1 and 5 contend in support of their preliminary objection that the entire cause of action comprising the registration of the offences, investigation into the offences and the issuance of search warrant having arisen in the State of Karnataka, this Court cannot entertain this petition.

The Court held that even as regards registration of crime in the present case, we are of the opinion that part of the cause of action has also arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court for the reason that the alleged fraudulent transactions consisted of different parts and some of those parts had their happenings in Nagpur.

The law regarding the power and authority of a High Court to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, Authority or any person is clear. It suggests that such power of a High Court includes the power to issue directions, orders or writs to a Government or Authority or a person situated outside its territorial jurisdiction, if the cause of action for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises, wholly or in part, within its territorial jurisdiction. 

Procedural requirements while executing a search warrant in different territory    

Petitioners submitted that the Karnataka Police did not follow the mandatory procedure prescribed in Section 101 and Section 105  of CrPC and, therefore, the seizure of rice bags had been vitiated.

The question raised before the Court was: Whether procedure regarding search and seizure prescribed in Sections 105 and 101 CrPC is mandatory in nature?

The Court concluded that whenever a search warrant is to be executed at a place situated beyond the local limits of jurisdiction of a Court, the Court would have three options available before it and by electing one of the options, it may cause the search warrant executed at a place beyond its territorial jurisdiction:

(i) The first option is of sending the warrant in duplicate to the Presiding Officer of the other Court within whose jurisdiction the place where search warrant is to be executed is situated and the procedure as regards this option is laid down in Section 105.

(ii) The second option is, as per the provisions contained in Section 78, empowering the Court to forward the search warrant by post or otherwise to Executive Magistrate or Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police, who shall cause the warrant to be executed, in the manner provided therein.

(ii) The third option is of directing the police officer to execute the search warrant, by following the procedure prescribed in Section 79.

The Court stated that procedure prescribed under Section 105 is not the only one which can be resorted to in such matters and that other options are also available. Therefore, the Court held that the words “may send such summons or warrant in duplicate by post or otherwise, to the Presiding Officer of that Court” used in Section 105(1)(i) cannot be understood as having any prescriptive or mandatory form.

Section 101 procedure governing the disposal of things found in search beyond jurisdiction is mandatory when the modes of execution of warrant laid down in Sections 78 and 79 are resorted to and without any exception. Further, when the mode of execution of warrant referred to in Section 105 is taken recourse to, ordinarily the procedure prescribed by Section 101 for production of seized articles must be followed and it is only in exceptional cases when warranted by fact situation of a particular case that departure therefrom, for reasons to be recorded in writing, can be permitted to be made by the Court getting the warrant executed and that too upon prescription of suitable conditions and adequate safeguards to ensure misuse of powers by the executing officer.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more