Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. Chapter VII of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with summons and searches. Part A concerns summon to produce, Part B relates to search warrants, Part C lays down general provisions applicable to searches, and Part D contains miscellaneous matters. Section 93 Cr.P.C. empowers a Court to issue a search warrant in three circumstances: (i)where the Court has reason to believe that a person to whom a summons or order under Section 91 Cr.P.C. has been or might be issued, or to whom a requisition under Section 92 has been or might be addressed, would not comply with such summons, order, or requisition; (ii)where the thing for which search is to be made is not known to the Court to be in the possession of any person; and (iii)where a general search or inspection is considered necessary by the Court. A warrant may specify the particular place or part of a place to be searched or inspected, and only such place as is mentioned in the warrant can be entered. Section 93(1)(c) read with sub-section (2) uses the expression “search or inspect”, thereby signifying that a warrant is mandatory for both search and inspection, and that the Court must record reasons to believe the necessity of issuing such warrant. Sections 94 and 95, in turn, deal with warrants in respect of stolen property, objectionable articles, and forfeited publications. 15.1. Part C commencing with Section 99 provides that the provisions in Sections 38, 70, 72,74, 77, 78 and 79, shall, as far as may be, apply to search warrants issued under Sections 93, 94, 95 and 97. These provisions relate to aid in execution of warrants of arrest, issuance, purpose, endorsement, authorization, and execution both within and outside India. Section 100(1) prescribes that where a place required to be searched or inspected is closed, the person in charge, upon production of the warrant, must allow ingress and afford all facilities for the search. Section 100(2) states that, in case of non-cooperation, the procedure under Section 47(2) (relating to authority to break open the premises) shall be followed. Section 100(4) mandates that, before making a search under this Chapter, the person conducting the search shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality (or other localities, if necessary) to witness the search. If they refuse, they may be compelled, and if they still fail or refuse, they are liable to prosecution under Section 187 IPC. Section 100(5) further requires that persons witnessing the search and seizure must sign the mahazar, and a copy of such mahazar shall be delivered to the occupant. 15.2. Part D begins with Section 102, which deals with seizure by a police officer of goods alleged or suspected to be stolen, or goods found under circumstances creating suspicion of commission of an offence. Section 102(3) requires that such seizure be immediately reported to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. If the seized goods cannot be transported to Court, or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for custody, or where they are no longer necessary for investigation, they may be handed over to a person upon such person executing a bond to produce them before the Court as and when required or under further orders. It is pertinent to note here that goods seized under Section 102 refers to goods recovered or seized during a causal recovery or general search, such as stolen goods or goods found accidentally, which the officer believes to be involved in some offence. It does not include goods seized under Sections 100(4) and 100(5) pursuant to a search or inspection conducted under Section 93 Cr.P.C. Section 102 thus addresses a distinct situation of seizure during a general search, not during a search or inspection under Section 15 of the 2009 Act. A plain reading of Section 15 of the 2009 Act, along with Sections 93 and 100 (4) - (5) Cr.P.C leads to the irresistible conclusion that, in the absence of a search, there cannot be any seizure.

16. The respondents have consistently pleaded before both the writ Court and the Appellate Court that the search and seizure were carried out in accordance with Section 15 of the 2009 Act. Their present attempt to contend that there was no search but merely an inspection cannot aid their case, since the pre-requisites under both Section 15 of the 2009 Act as well as Section 93 Cr.P.C must be satisfied in either event. The expression ‘closed premises’ denotes premises, where access is locked or otherwise unavailable to the public except with the permission of the occupant, and cannot be construed narrowly to exclude open- air premises, if such access is not generally available to unauthorised persons. A distinction must be drawn between premises where the public has access for a limited purpose and premises that are truly public. In the case of a warehouse or godown, access is granted only to those who have some business connection with the owner. Even in trading premises, entry is subject to restrictions. Therefore, merely because a place is open at the time of visit does not mean that the requirements under Section 15 of the 2009 Act or the Cr.P.C. can be bypassed. Any officer intending to conduct a search or inspection and effect a seizure must necessarily follow the prescribed procedure and cannot forcibly enter premises without warrant or reasons duly recorded. These safeguards, embodied both in the special enactment and the Cr.P.C., are designed to prevent arbitrary action and to uphold the guarantee of due process.

19. As seen above, Section 15 of the 2009 Act and Section 93 Cr.P.C speak about search and inspection. Both provisions treat “search” and “inspection” as distinct actions. Inspection refers to the verification of the books, records, or documents at the premises of a person, which is generally permissible under the respective law upon compliance with the prerequisites of authorization, recording of reasons to believe, and permission from the competent authority under law. It is made to verify compliance with the statute. A search, on the other hand, has a wider connotation. It implies the power to look in any place for any materials, goods, books, or documents believed to be secreted or concealed, which may evidence a violation and may be liable to seizure or confiscation. Further, to conduct either a search or an inspection, not only is a warrant ordinarily necessary, but there must also be reasons to believe that such a search is required. 19.1. Seizure refers to the act of taking the material object into custody for the purpose of investigation or enquiry. Detention refers to a situation where the owner, though retaining possession of the goods, is restrained from using them. There is also a subtle difference where a search followed by seizure is effected under a special enactment, which contemplates a sequence of mandatory steps. Such proceedings are initiated not merely to charge a person with a violation but also to prevent further violations, as in the present case. 19.2. In every search conducted under a special enactment without a warrant, the requirement of recording reasons to believe is mandatory. The reasons necessitating the search must be relevant and must reflect application of mind based on some information – either from a third party or personal knowledge – and cannot be based on mere presumption or extraneous considerations. Such reasons cannot rest on mere suspicion or subjective satisfaction; something more substantial is required for a prudent person to conclude that a search and/or seizure is necessary.