Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. In the result, I have no hesitation in holding that Section 627 of the Companies Act is not a substitute for issuing a search warrant and cannot have the effect of annulment of Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of investigation, enquiry or trial of offences committed by the officers of the company in connection with the management of the company.

15. It is further contended by Sri B. Audinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner that the order issuing the search warrant is without jurisdiction for another reason and amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. It is contended that under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code whenever any court or any officer-in-charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code by or before such court or officer, such court may issue a summons, and such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order. It is contended that such summons could not be issued in respect of documents in the custody of an accused as held by the Supreme Court. The contention is where summons could not be issued under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a search warrant under Section 93(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be issued on the ground that summonses or orders issued under Section 91 of Criminal Procedure Code were not likely to be complied with.

28. The contention is that the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the petition specifically mentions in para. 7 that a general search warrant is necessary to search the premises of the registered office of accused No. 4-company. Thus, the petitioner prayed for issuance of a search warrant under Section 93(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code also. Under Section 93(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court may issue a search warrant when it considers that the purpose of enquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code will be served by general search or inspection to search, seize and produce the documents mentioned by the petitioner.

31. The description of the premises of the nature of the institution referred to by the Supreme Court in the above case is equally applicable to a corporate office. It may be mentioned that the corporate offices are run in sprawling premises. There is nothing to show that A1 to A3 were having personal custody of the documents sought to be seized during search. The petitioner has not furnished any information as to the specific place in the vast premises of the corporate office where those documents were lying. Under these circumstances, though the learned special judge has purportedly issued a search warrant under Section 93(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the facts and circumstances of the case appear to justify the issuance of the general search warrant under Section 93(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code also.

33. Considering these circumstances, the test of probable cause both as to making out an offence and as to the availability of the documents sought to be seized by search must be held to have been made out. As to the requirement of particularity and specificity, under Sub-section (1)(a) of Section 93 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a search warrant can be issued when requirement of Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code would not have been complied with and a warrant could be issued to search a specific place belonging to the person to whom summons could have been issued. Whereas under Section 93(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, a search warrant could be issued where the required document or thing is not known to the court to be in the possession of any person but obviously when the place is known, the search warrant which could be issued under Section 93(1)(c) is apparently an exception to the requirement of particularity or specificity inasmuch as a general search warrant could be issued without specifying the particular place or the name of the person in whose custody the document is said to be lying. The circumstances of the case as noted above would show that there was a justification for issuing a general search warrant also as contemplated under Section 93(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code.