Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: dereliction of duty in Goondla Venkateswarlu vs State Of A.P. And Anr. on 29 March, 2006Matching Fragments
9. Recently the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. M.P. Gupta AIR 2004 SC 730 : [2003] 8 Supreme 706 held that official act can be performed both in discharge of official duty as well as dereliction of duty even if the act done is in dereliction of duty to attract the bar under Section 197, Cr. P. C.
10. In the light of the law as aforesaid it has to be considered now whether the act done by the petitioner is in discharge of official duty or in dereliction of it.
11. Sub-section (3) of Section 28 referred to above clearly manifests that whenever an officer suspects the dealer he has to record the reasons in writing, seize such accounts, registers and other documents of the dealers as he may consider necessary and shall give the dealer a receipt of the same.
12. Sub-section (4) of Section 28 manifests that power to enter and search at any time during the business hours prescribed under the relevant law for the time being in force or where no such hours are prescribed, all reasonable times. All searches under Sub-section (4) shall, so far as may be, be made in accordance with provisions of Cr. P. C. subject to the rules, if any, made in this behalf.
13. Having regard to the specific allegation that officer who has searched and seized the documents has not issued any receipt to evidence that such seizure was in discharge of official duty or any search warrant was issued by the petitioner before searching the business premises and residence of the complainant, it is for the petitioner/accused to lead evidence and establish that acts done by him was in due discharge of the official duties and non-issue of receipt in evidence of seizure was in dereliction of duties, if any. In the absence of the same, it is not possible for this Court to accept the plea taken by the petitioner that the acts complained of are done in discharge of official duty or in dereliction of duties for quashing the proceedings at the initial stage unless the complainant is given opportunity to establish his case.