T R PRATT Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We do not think that we can uphold the order which has been passed by the learned Magistrate in this matter, The warrant which has been actually issued refers to an enquiry which is "now being made."

(2.) It is conceded that no enquiry is being made by the Magistrate and the enquiry which is therein mentioned probably refers to the investigation which is being made by the officer appointed by the Government to enquire into the dealings with the Munitions Board. The warrant does not refer to an enquiry "about to be made," What was prayed for was a general search warrant in respect of books and documents mentioned in the petition, namely, for the years 1917, 1918 and 1919. The warrant as issued is a general warrant referring to all accounts, ledgers, stock-books, etc, correspondence and documents which may have a bearing on the transactions with the Munitions Board. It is said that the order was made under Section 96, Clause 3, of the Criminal Procedure Code, that is to say, when the Court considers that the purposes of any enquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code will be served by a general search or inspection, but there is no enquiry or trial or other proceeding under the Code.

(3.) Then, as regards the Court "considering" the matter, there is nothing stated in the petition about T.R. Pratt having any business transactions with the Munitions Board. It is urged that from the name of that firm appearing in the schedule to the petition, it ought to be inferred that there were business transactions between T.R. Pratt and the Munitions Board. We do not find that there is any material in the petition which the Magistrate could have considered in connection with the issue of a serach warrant so far as T.R. Pratt is concerned. No doubt, great weight is to be attached to the statements made in the petition by the officer engaged in the investigation. There is nothing to suggest that he is not doing his very best in the matter and it is not the intention of the investigating officer to cause any damage to the parties namd in the petition. In fact the petition has been very carefully worded so far as that is concerned. It seems to us, however, to be an investigation conducted by the officer to find out what offence, if any, was committed and by whom upon inspection of the books and other papers, if obtainable, of firms which had business transactions with the Munitions Board. It is not suggested that this is a case under chapter 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and, therefore, it is unnecessary for us to deal with it. Reference has been made to the case of Clarke v. Brojendra Kishore Roy , but we do not think that the decision in that case affects the question arising in the case before us.