Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Another argument of the learned Addl. A.G. is that when the evidence has been collected by search and seizure under the order of a Magistrate it amounts to collection of evidence and it should be allowed to form basis of prosecution and to be proved in a Court of law because no prejudice has occurred to the accused. It is urged that mere technical objection is being raised and a written order of Superintendent of Police is not mandatory.

9. First I will look into the aspect whether the order purporting to be dated 6-5-1996 but purporting to be signed on 6-5-1997, was actually passed on 6-5-1996. The S.P. was called and asked to clarify. Shri C.S. Amb, the then S.P. appeared and has given the explanation as has been noticed in the arguments of learned Addl. A.G. But, two manifest aspects which arose are that if human error in writing the date was committed by the S.P. on '6-5-1996' in putting the date as 6-5-1997, how it was that another order with titled date as '6-5-1997' was also recorded. It is difficult to synthesise the two orders as prepared on the same date being of 6-5-1996. Still another aspect is that in the order dated 12-7-1996, in favour of Shri Mourya Inspector, again, the signing date was recorded as 12-7-1997 instead of '12-7-1996' and another order of the same type purports to be dated 12-7-1997 on its title also signed on 12-7-1997. It is really difficult to accept that on four separate orders, in two sets of two orders, prepared on two dates more than two months apart, the same mistake of recording 1997 instead of 1996 was committed by this officer as a result of human error or clerical error. This Court is unable to eschew this explanation. So on the face of it the Court finds that in fact there was no order on 6-5-1996 or on 12-7-1996 in favour of either Shri Bisen or Shri Mourya or generally. The orders may have been passed on 6-5-1997 and 12-7-1997 respectively, and titled date '6-5-1996' and '12-7-1996' was illegally recorded on them.