FIROZ SIDDIQUI, Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which emanates for consideration in this petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC is, whether the trial Magistrate is justified in issuing general warrant for search of locker held by the petitioner in exercise of power conferred under Section 93(1)(c) of the CrPC? The aforesaid question arises in this case on the following factual backdrop: -

(2.) The petitioner was arrested by the jurisdictional police on 31-7-2019 in connection with Crime No. 449/2019 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, as he is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 384 , 120B & 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and during the pendency of investigation, on 18-9-2019, an application for issuance of search warrant of the petitioner's locker No. G 4/28 at IDBI Bank, Branch Aishwarya Residency, Telibandha, Raipur, was filed by the jurisdictional police before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur stating that for collection of evidence, search of the petitioner's locker is necessary. Thereafter, charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal court on 24-9-2019 for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 30-9-2019 considered and granted that application finding that for collection of evidence in connection with the crime, issuance of warrant of search for his locker appears to be just and proper. The order granting general warrant for search of locker was assailed by the petitioner by way of revision, but he remained unsuccessful leading to filing of the instant petition under Section 482 of the CrPC.

(3.) Mr. Maneesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is absolutely unjustified in granting the application filed under Section 93(1) of the CrPC and would also submit that for investigation of an offence, that too for collection of evidence, no search warrant can be issued under Section 93(1)(c) of the CrPC. He would further submit that Section 93(1)(c) of the CrPC requires the Court to consider that for the purposes of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code , general search is required, then only search warrant can be issued. In the instant case, the learned trial Magistrate without application of mind, on mere asking by the police station that for collection of evidence, search warrant be issued, issued general warrant for search of locker which runs contrary to the provisions contained in Section 93(1)(c) of the CrPC, as it smacks complete non-application of mind and in aid of investigation for which no warrant under Section 93(1)(c) of the CrPC can be issued, as such, the order passed by the trial Magistrate and by the revisional Court perpetuating the illegality, deserve to be set-aside. He relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of V. S. Kuttan Pillai v. Ramakrishnan and another (1980) 1 SCC 264 to support his contention.