BRIJENDRA NATH AGARWAL Vs. PHARMED PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is being prosecuted on a private complaint of the opposite party under Section 409 Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 25 -6 -1979. It would appear that in pursuance of a search and seizure warrant issued by the Magistrate concerned medicines, account books, vouchers etc. have been seized from the premises of Brijendra and Brijendra. The order is Annexure III and the search warrant, also directing seizure is Annexure IV. The order was passed on an application preferred by the opposite party, Annexure 1, supported by an affidavit, Annexure II. In the application for search and seizure, it was stated that the belongings are in possession of the accused and prayer for his search and seizure from his place was made. The warrant issued by the Magistrate is, however, not for any personal search or search of the premises of the accused person, but it purports to be a warrant for general search.

(2.) THE first ground urged is that there is a violation of Article 20 of the Constitution as any accused person cannot be called upon to furnish any incriminating evidence against him. Reliance has been placed upon the case of State of Gujarat v. Shyam Lal Mohan Lal Choksi, AIR 1965 SC 1251 wherein it was held that no search warrant could be issued to search for documents known to be in possession of the accused, but a general search or inspection can still be ordered. The learned Counsel for the opposite side relied upon the case of V.S. Kuttan Pillai v. Ramakrishnan reported in : AIR 1980 SC 185. In that case the following observations have been made:

(3.) IN the circumstances, it would appear that the order, as such, for search and seizure was not in accordance with law.