RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. V S KUTTAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the complainant in C. C. 8/77 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alwaye. Offences punishable under Sections 403, 409, 420 and 477-A read with Section 34 I. P. C were alleged against the first respondent and 5 others who are the office bearers of the H. M. D. P. Sabha, Moothakunnam. After the filing of the complaint, a search warrant was issued under Section 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act 2 of 1974 for searching the office of the Sabha and for seizing certain documents specified therein. Pursuant to the search warrant, books, documents and papers were produced before the Court. The 2nd accused thereafter filed Cri. M. P. 50 of 1977 for recalling the search warrant and for the return of the seized documents to him. The contention put forward on his behalf was that the issue of search warrant was illegal and without jurisdiction in view of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on the decisions in State of Gujarat v. Shyamlal AIR 1965 SC 1251 : 1965 (2) Cri LJ 256, Shiv Dayal v. Sohan Lal as also the order in Cri. M. P. No. 249 of 1978 (Ker) of this Court. The trial court upheld the contention that the search was without jurisdiction, and ordered return of the documents. The above order is sought to be set aside in the present petition.

(2.) IT was argued on behalf of the petitioner that neither Article 20 (3) of the Constitution nor the provisions relating to search in the Cr. P. C. have been contravened in the instant case and the order of the trial court directing the return: of the documents is unsustainable in law.

(3.) ARTICLE 20 (3) of the Constitution states : "no person accused of any offence shall be Compelled to be a witness against himself," The relevant provisions relating to summoning, search and seizure of documents are contained in Sections 91 and 93 of the Cr. P. C. which are quoted below