9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Legality of the search conducted by Defendant No. 1. 2. Malicious intent of Defendant No. 2 in instigating the search. 3. Interpretation of Section 165, Criminal Procedure Code (Criminal P.C.). 4. Joint decree against two defendants with different causes of action. Analysis: 1. The trial court found the search conducted by Defendant No. 1 to be legal, but Defendant No. 2 was held to have acted maliciously. The District Court, however, deemed the search unauthorized under Section 165, Criminal P.C., and decreed the suit for damages against both defendants. The Sub-Inspector, Defendant No. 1, appealed, arguing that the search was justified under Section 165 as it was conducted for specific stolen articles mentioned by Defendant No. 2. 2. The respondent contended that Section 165 does not authorize a search for stolen property but only for specific stolen articles. However, the court clarified that a search for specific articles, as in this case, falls within the purview of Section 165. The Sub-Inspector's search for the exact items reported stolen was deemed legal under the law, thereby dismissing the case against Defendant No. 1 and awarding costs to him. 3. The judgment highlighted the misinterpretation by the lower appellate court regarding the cause of action against each defendant. It was noted that a joint decree against two defendants with distinct causes of action was legally untenable. The court emphasized that the decree should have been specific to each defendant, and the sum decreed should not have been jointly payable by both defendants. 4. Additionally, the court addressed the contention that a police officer is not entitled to search for specific items in the house of a person accused of a crime. Citing relevant case law, it was established that such searches are not illegal if conducted for specific items related to a reported crime. The court concluded that the Sub-Inspector's search was lawful, and the cause of action against him was unfounded, leading to the allowance of the appeal. In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of Defendant No. 1, the Sub-Inspector of police, dismissing the case against him and awarding costs. The judgment clarified the legal basis for conducting searches under Section 165, Criminal P.C., and emphasized the importance of distinct decrees for defendants with different causes of action.
|
