SVIL MINES LTD 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 petitioner has filed rejoinder to the return filed by the respondents in which in para 3 of the rejoinder, it is stated that in this case the authorization was given as per Annexure R-3 under section 55 (3) to section 55 (6). Section 55 (6) empowers the authorities to search a place of business of such dealer or any place whether such place is the place of business or not, where the Commissioner believes that documents, registers or stock of the business is kept. He is also authorized to break open the lock of any door, box, locker, safe almirah or any other in order to continue inspection where the keys thereof are not produced on demand or not available. Section 55(8) provides that while making entry, search and seizure under section 55 of the VAT Act the authorities exercise the same power and have to follow the same procedure as are exercised by and or required to be followed by police officer in relation to entry, search and seizure under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thus the procedure as laid down under section 100 of the Cr.P.C, is to be mandatorily followed. Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C, mandatorily requires presence of two independent witnesses of the locality before commencement of search. No independent witnesses were called by the authorities. Sub-section 5 of section 100 requires the search party to prepare a list of all things seized in the course of search and other places, in which they are respectively found the list shall be prepared by such officer and signed by such witnesses. In this case though the list was not prepared but the documents were placed in boxes. THE search party was duty bound to prepare a list duly signed by two independent witnesses recording the facts of taking possession of the documents and a copy of the same ought to have been supplied to the petitioner as provided in sub-section 7 of Section 100 of the Cr.P.C.