Amit Hiteshbhai Pandya vs State Of Gujarat on 20 October, 2022
[29] So far as the judgement relied upon by the learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioner in the case of Angle Click (supra) is
concerned, the jurisdiction of High Court of Bombay appears to have
been invoked for non-compliance of procedure prescribed in Section 101
read with Section 105 of the Cr.P.C. by the police officer of the State of
Karnataka within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Nagpur. It
appears from the said judgement that the Bombay High Court refrained
itself from taking any decision on merits holding that the Court in
Karnataka is better place than us to consider and decide such objections,
however, so far as the execution of warrant is concerned, according to
the Bombay High Court, there is violation of mandatory procedure under
Sections 101 and 105 of the Cr.P.C., and thereby, only because of that
violation, the seizure of the rice bags declared to be illegal. It is pertinent
to note that the Bombay High Court neither decided anything about the
F.I.R. / proceedings pending at Karnataka nor even considered anything
Page 26 of 29
Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 04:29:27 IST 2022
R/SCR.A/7851/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/10/2022
about the power of issuance of warrant rather the Bombay High Court
has permitted to issue fresh warrant. Further, what is most important to
note is that the Bombay High Court has invoked the provisions under
Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India for violation committed by the
"police authority" of Karnataka within the territorial jurisdiction of the
Bombay High Court at Nagpur. However, in the case on hand, the
challenge by the petitioner is not of any violation or illegality committed
by any of the authorities nor challenge the investigation and the
challenge is made to the order passed by the Criminal Court.