KALINGA TUBES LTD Vs. D SURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE applications were previously heard on the 21st and 22nd of October and we pronounced orders on 27 -10 -52 (See AIR 1953 Orissa 49) granting to the applicants one of the prayers which they made in their applications viz., a direction for the issue of copies of certain documents, which the learned Magistrate held the applicants not to be entitled to. We felt that in the light of the additional material that may be available to the applicants on getting those copies it would be desirable to hear further arguments with reference to the legality of the searches which was the second question that was raised. We accordingly directed that the applications should be posted for further hearing. They have therefore come up again before us and we proceed to consider the question of the legality of the searches.

(2.) IT is necessary to note at the outset that when the applications were first heard on the 21st October, the advocate for the petitioners sought to put forward an additional ground of fact said to have a bearing on the legality of the searches. A petition raising it was filed on 17th October 1952. The additional ground was that since the searches were conducted by an officer of the Special Police Establishment, Delhi, they were illegal, inasmuch as the requisite consent of the State Government of Orissa under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Polica Establishment Act, 1946, enabling him to exercise powers and jurisdiction of a police officer In Orissa State was not previously obtained. Since these applications were filed as early as on 21 -6 -52 and the hearing date had been fixed from time to time at the request of the advo -cates on both sides an additional ground of fact at such a late stage could not be entertained. The affidavit in support of the applications made only a vague statement that the petitioners got the information about the absence of requisite consent 'recently' but did not disclose when and how that information was obtained. There was therefore no adequate ground for entertaining this belated application raising a fresh and disputed question of fact. In thecircumstances, we intimated at the original hearing of these applications on the 21st October that we were not prepared to allow that fresh allegation of fact to be relied on for the purpose of challenging the legality of the searches.

(3.) THE application for the search -warrant in this case was made by the Inspector, Special Police Establishment, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. That application as well as the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate directing the issue of the search -warrants show that the warrants were issued under Section 96, Criminal P. C., for the seizure of certain