Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

530. (5) Substantially and essentially, the grounds pressed in this petition are that off and on, during the course of investigation of the registered offences, the respondents/ authority whom powers are vested to make search under section 165 of Cr.P.C., seek indulgence of the court by resorting to provisions under section 93 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that this action on the part of the respondents shows gross negligence. The powers enumerated under sections 93 and 165 of Cr.P.C. are altogether different and same cannot be permitted to be used in a fancy manner. One cannot be permitted to encroach upon the power of the Court. No canon of construction permits such an erosion of power of the court to get issued search warrant. Simultaneously, the courts should also be vigilant of the fact and refrain themselves from proceeding at the behest of the Investigating Agency. Hence, it is prayed that appropriate directions may be issued against police authorities to safeguard the interest of the public at large by way of mandamus with observation that as far as possible search be made in accordance with the provisions given under section 165 of Cr.P.C. instead of resorting to the provisions contemplated under Section 93 of Cr.P.C. in getting search warrant frequently from the courts.

(9) To consider whether present petition is maintainable or not, following two question are cropped up for consideration:-

(i) Whether by invoking jurisdiction under section 93(1)(c) of Cr.P.C. search warrant can be issued by the court competent on the request of the police authority/Investigating Agency ?.
(ii) Whether by entertaining this petition, writ of mandamus can be issued ?.
(10) It is not a question before this court to consider whether trial includes "investigation" or not. Certainly, trial is something different from investigation. In this context, we need not to emphasize or elaborate further word "inquiry" or "trial". It is settled law that both are different procedure as defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure. On bare perusal of section 93 Cr.P.C., it indicates that provisions given under section 93(1)(c) is something different from sections 93(1)(a) and 93(1)(b). The provisions given in sub-clause (c) provides where the court considers that the purposes of any inquiry, trial or "other proceeding" under this Code will be served by a general search or inspection, in that event search warrant can be issued. This point has already been considered by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Hasimara Industries Ltd. & another Vs. The Company Law Board & others (1976 Cri.L.J. 50) and held as under:-

(12) So as per the proposition of law laid down by Hon. Supreme Court in the case of V.S.Kuttan Pillai (supra) it becomes crystal clear that general search warrant may be issued by the court competent by invoking powers under section 93(1)(c) of Cr.P.C. There is no rider or exception that prior to take action as per provisions given under section 165 of Cr.P.C., search warrant can not be issued by the competent court by invoking powers under section 93(1)(c) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Investigating Agency may take search as per provisions under section 165 of Cr.P.C. or if required may approach the competent court under section 93(1)(c) of Cr.P.C., as the case may be. Not only this, the decision in the case of V.S.Kuttan Pillai (supra), also signifies that the provisions of Section 93(1)(c) is not hit by Article 20 (a) of the Constitution of India, relevant paras of which are quoted above.

(16) In the case at hand, power conferred on the court under section 93(1)(c) of Cr.P.C. is purely discretionary in nature and therefore it is left open to the aggrieved person concerned to claim damage, if any caused by such temporary interference if found to be in excess of legal authority by way of other proceedings for redressal of his grievance. Apart that such kind of general direction in the nature of writ of mandamus cannot be issued when the law permits the competent court to issue search warrant under the provisions as envisaged in section 93(1)(c) of Cr.P.C. and when further there is no bar created for invoking such powers. We further make it clear that issuing of search warrant by invoking powers under section 93(1)(c) of Cr.P.C. does not tantamount to interference with investigation or issue of any particular direction to investigate the matter in a particular manner. To sum up, issuance of warrant under section 93(1)(c) of Cr.P.C. does not lead to interference with the investigation and therefore also no writ can be issued.