1972 (2) TMI 90 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the search conducted under Section 165, Cr.P.C.
2. Justification for obstruction and use of force against a public servant.
3. Applicability of Sections 342, 353, and 332 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Search Conducted Under Section 165, Cr.P.C.:

The appellants argued that the search conducted by P.W. 1 (Circle Inspector Rana Ranjit Singh) was illegal as it did not comply with the provisions of Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). Specifically, P.W. 1 did not record in writing the grounds of his belief that the search was necessary, which is a condition precedent to effect a search under Section 165, Cr.P.C. Additionally, P.W. 1 did not provide a copy of the list of the seized currency notes to the appellants as required under Section 103, Cr.P.C. The trial court accepted the evidence of assault, wrongful restraint, and wrongful confinement but acquitted the appellants due to the non-compliance with Section 165, Cr.P.C. The High Court, however, held that the non-observance of Section 165 was a mere irregularity and did not justify the appellants' actions.

2. Justification for Obstruction and Use of Force Against a Public Servant:

The appellants contended that they had the right to obstruct the search as it was conducted in contravention of Section 165, Cr.P.C., making it illegal. They argued that any obstruction caused during the subsequent investigation would not constitute an offense. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the non-conformity with Section 165 must be confined to the actual search and seizure. Once the search and seizure are complete, Section 165 ceases to apply to subsequent steps in the investigation. The Court emphasized that even if the search was illegal, it did not justify the appellants' actions of obstructing and using force against P.W. 1.

3. Applicability of Sections 342, 353, and 332 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

The Supreme Court analyzed the applicability of Sections 342, 353, and 332 of the IPC. The Court found that the appellants wrongfully restrained and confined P.W. 1, thereby committing offenses under Sections 342 and 353 of the IPC. The Court noted that Section 342, Cr.P.C. is not confined to offenses against public servants but applies generally to wrongful restraint and confinement. The appellants' actions of forcibly seizing, lifting, and confining P.W. 1, and threatening him with a lathi, were deemed culpable. The Court also addressed the conviction under Section 332 of the IPC, which was not initially charged. The respondent's advocate did not insist on upholding this conviction, and the Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 332 while confirming the convictions and sentences under Sections 342 and 353.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, confirming the convictions and sentences of the appellants under Sections 342 and 353 of the IPC. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 332, IPC, as it was not necessary to address its legality. The appeal was dismissed except for the extent indicated.