SVIL MINES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought following reliefs :-

(2.) The aforesaid letter of authorization and search are assailed by the petitioner in this petition on the ground that search of business and residential premises of petitioner Company were made without any valid reasons, illegal authorization and without showing the authorization for search to the persons present at the business premises and residential premises of the Managing Director of petitioner. The search is also assailed on the ground that procedure as laid down under section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for short) was not followed and the entire search, conducted violating the provisions under section 100 of Cr.P.C., vitiates. The petitioner has also raised allegations in respect of behaviour, use of language by the authorized officers, and challenged the same on the grounds, that procedure at the time of conduction of search and seizure was not followed. Engagement of private security personnel, avoiding local police to help the aforesaid persons for the search and seizure is also a ground to challenge the search.

(3.) The facts of the case are :