SHYAM LAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants along with another accused Narayan Singh, were convicted by the High Court under sections 332, 353, 342 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment on each count,the sentences to run concurrently. These two appeals are by special leave.

(2.) On 26-5-1965, Sardar Jagat Singh, owner of a lorry made an application to the Vigilance Commissioner, Bhopal Division that the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 80/69 Shyam Lal Sharma, Barrier Inspector at village Multai, District Betul, has seized the licence of his Driver stating that if he has to pass from the Barrier, he should bring Rs.5/- per trip or Rs.40/- p.m. but the Driver refused to pay him anything and has declined to go there as a result of which he is likely to suffer heavy loss. He, therefore, offered to give currency notes which may be signed and requested that a proper person may be given to him to arrest the Barrier Inspector Sharma and his staff and save him from the corruption. On this application, Circle Inspector Rana Ranjit Singh, P.W.1 was asked to attend to it. Accodingly, he along with Jagat Singh, his Driver and Panchas Hardeet Singh, P.W.6 and Munna Lal, P.W.7 proceeded to Multai Barrier by truck to arrange for a trap and catch the culprits redhanded. On arriving at the Barrier Gate, 4 currency notes of Rs.10/- each were given by Jagat Singh, P.W.2, to his Driver who was sent to the Barrier Office along with P.W.6 and P.W.7 to give the same, if demanded, and after they were accepted an agreed signal was to be given. Accordingly, the Driver went to the Barrier office along with P.W.6 Hardeet Singh and P.W.7 Munna Lal and after the amount was received by accused Narayan Singh, P.W.6 Hardeet Singh came out of the office and gave the agreed signal. Immediately, P.W.1 Ranjit Singh proceeded to the office and when the accused Narayan Singh saw him coming, he felt suspicious, went inside the inner apartment of the office and concealed the notes under the over-coat lying there. As soon as P.W.1 entered the office, the Driver Jeet Singh informed him that the Constable has concealed the notes under the over-coat in the inner apartment. P.W.1 then disclosed his identity and after having his person searched, went inside the inneer apartment and recovered the currency notes lying beneath the over-coat. The notes were seized and while he was preparing the Panchanama, accused Udho Prasad-appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 81/69 arrived on the scene and started taking P.W.1 to task for having entered his office without permission or reference to him. He then asked accused Narayan Singh not to sign the seizure memo. While this alteration was going on, the accused Shyam Lal arrived there and he also reprimanded P.W.1 and questioned his authority. Even though P.W.1 asserted that authority was conferred upon him to make a search, accused Shyam Lal asked him to give him in writing that he had entered the Barrier Office without the permission of the person incharge otherwise he would not be allowed to go out. Shyam Lal also picked up the notes from the table but they were given back on the protest of P.W.1, P.W.1 then assured him that he would give the seizure memo and the writing to say that he searched at the Dak Bungalow opposite and that accused should accompany him. He was accordingly allowed and he then left the office without getting the signature ofthe accused Narayan Singh on the seizure Memo. But no sooner had P.W.1 come out of the office on to the road. Udho Prasad again insisted on the writing being given whereupon Shyam Lal caught P.W.1 by his waist and forcibly lifted him took him to the Barrier office and threw him on a chair. The accused Udho Prasad asked accused Narayan Singh to take out a Danda so that these Police Officials raiding the Office may be taught a lesson. Accused Shyam Lal insisted that unless P.W.1 gives him then and there a copy of the seizure memo as also a writing to the effect that search was taken, the latter would not be allowed to leave the office. P.W.1 faced with this sicutation could not but comply with the demand made by Udho Prasad and Shyam Lal. It is only after he had given inwriting that he had made a search he was allowed to return to the Dak Bungalow and that too when Misra, Station officer P.W.8 who had come there went to telephone. Thereafter P.W.1 gave a written information, Ex.P-4 on 2-6-65, as follows:-

(3.) We may here state, and it is not denied, that page No. W.1 did not record in writing the grounds of his belief that anything necessary for the purposes of investigation into any offence cannot in his opinion be obtained without undue delay which is a condition precedent to effect a search under Section 165, Criminal P.C. The Trial Court while accepting the evidence and holding that assault, wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement are proved against the appellants, none-the-less acquitted them because the provisions of Section 165, Criminal P.C. relating to search had not been complied with. On an appeal by the State, the High Court also accepted the prosecution case and agreed with the findings of the trial Court but rejected the contention of the appellants that the search was illegal and entitled the appellants to obstruct and man-handle P.W.1. In this view the non-observance of the provisions of Section 165, Criminal P.C. held to be a mere irregularity as P.W.1 was throughout conducting himself in an honest and bona fide manner in the discharge of his duties and the appellants were not justified in claiming the right of private defence. In this view, it reversed the order of acquittal and convicted the accused of the offences as aforesaid.