9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the search warrant issued under Section 93 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. Applicability of Article 20(3) of the Constitution regarding self-incrimination. 3. Interpretation of Sections 91 and 93 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the search warrant issued under Section 93 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: The search warrant in question was issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to search the office of H.M.D.P. Sabha and seize books, documents, and papers. The petitioner challenged this warrant, seeking its recall and the return of the seized items. The Magistrate, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Shyamlal Mohanlal v. State of Gujarat and a Kerala High Court decision, initially quashed the warrant. However, the High Court of Kerala upheld the warrant, stating that the provisions of Section 93(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code are not affected by Article 20(3) of the Constitution. 2. Applicability of Article 20(3) of the Constitution regarding self-incrimination: Article 20(3) of the Constitution provides immunity from self-incrimination, ensuring that no person accused of an offense can be compelled to be a witness against themselves. The petitioner argued that the search and seizure of documents were in violation of this constitutional protection. However, the High Court, after reviewing various precedents, including M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra and Kathi Kalu Oghad, concluded that a search and seizure under Section 93(1) (c) does not compel the accused to incriminate themselves. The court emphasized that passive submission to a search does not equate to compulsion, and thus, does not violate Article 20(3). 3. Interpretation of Sections 91 and 93 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 91 allows the court or an officer in charge of a police station to issue a summons or written order to produce a document necessary for an investigation, inquiry, trial, or proceeding. Section 93 provides for issuing a search warrant under specific conditions. The court detailed the conditions under which a search warrant can be issued, particularly under Section 93(1) (a), (b), and (c). It clarified that a search warrant under Section 93(1)(a) cannot be issued to an accused person if a summons under Section 91 cannot be issued to them. However, Section 93(1)(c) allows for a general search warrant, which can be executed without compelling the accused to participate actively, thus not violating Article 20(3). The court further clarified that the search warrant in this case was issued under Section 93(1)(c), which permits a general search to collect necessary documents for the trial. The court emphasized that the documents and books of accounts of the institution were not in the personal custody of the accused but in the possession of the institution, making the search warrant valid under Section 93(1)(c). Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming the validity of the search warrant issued under Section 93(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The court concluded that the search and seizure did not violate the constitutional protection against self-incrimination provided by Article 20(3) as the accused were not compelled to produce the documents themselves. The appeal was dismissed.
|
