1939 (8) TMI 34 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Propriety of the order issuing a search warrant under Section 96, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
2. Distinction between "inquiry" and "investigation" under CrPC.
3. Sufficiency of materials for issuing a search warrant.
4. Judicial application of mind by the Magistrate.
5. Return of documents seized under the search warrant.

Comprehensive, Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Propriety of the Order Issuing a Search Warrant under Section 96, CrPC
The primary issue revolves around the propriety of the Chief Presidency Magistrate's order issuing a search warrant under Section 96, CrPC. The Assistant Commissioner of the Calcutta Police, Detective Department, submitted a letter to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, requesting a search warrant based on information received from the Collector of Customs. The letter alleged systematic undervaluation of cotton piece goods by certain parties, resulting in a considerable loss of revenue to the Government. Acting solely on this letter, the Magistrate issued a search warrant to seize documents, account books, and other papers from the implicated parties.

2. Distinction between "Inquiry" and "Investigation" under CrPC
The judgment emphasizes the clear distinction between "inquiry" and "investigation" as defined under Section 4 of the CrPC. "Inquiry" refers to proceedings conducted by a Magistrate or Court, while "investigation" pertains to the collection of evidence by a police officer or authorized person. The Magistrate's confusion between these terms led to a misapprehension of the true import of Clause 3 of Section 96(1). The judgment clarifies that Clause 3 of Section 96(1) does not provide for steps to be taken in aid of an investigation but is intended for inquiries, trials, or other proceedings under the Code.

3. Sufficiency of Materials for Issuing a Search Warrant
The judgment scrutinizes the materials upon which the Magistrate based his decision to issue the search warrant. The Magistrate acted on a bare statement in a letter from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, without further inquiry into the reliability or sufficiency of the information provided. The judgment criticizes this approach, stating that the Magistrate failed to perform the duties and take the precautions required by law before issuing a warrant for a general search.

4. Judicial Application of Mind by the Magistrate
The judgment highlights the necessity for a Magistrate to apply his judicial mind to the question of whether there are sufficient grounds for issuing a search warrant. It emphasizes that a search warrant should not be issued automatically or merely for the asking. The Magistrate must be satisfied that the issuance of the warrant is necessary and that the requirements of the law are met. The judgment finds that the Magistrate did not apply his judicial mind and acted on insufficient material, leading to the issuance of an unjustified warrant.

5. Return of Documents Seized under the Search Warrant
The judgment concludes with the order that the documents seized under the search warrant should be returned to the petitioners forthwith. The judgment acknowledges the significant loss and inconvenience suffered by the trading company due to the seizure of its account books and other documents. It stresses the importance of ensuring that no one is subjected to avoidable hardship and inconvenience unless such measures are imperatively necessary for the detection, prevention, or punishment of crime.

Conclusion:
The judgment sets aside the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate issuing the search warrant, emphasizing the necessity for judicial application of mind and sufficient materials before issuing such warrants. The documents seized under the search warrant are ordered to be returned to the petitioners immediately.