9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1959 (10) TMI 1 - SC - Income TaxWhether a person contravened the provisions of the Act or the Rules which is an offence ? Held that - We think that the legislature, by stating in Section 18 of the Act that the searches under the Act and the Rules shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Code relating to searches, clearly indicated that the appropriate provisions of the Code shall govern searches authorised under the Act and the Rules. We therefore hold that the provisions of Section 165 of the Code must be followed in the matter of searches under Rule 201 of the Rules The search made by the Deputy Superintendent in the present case in contravention of the provisions of Section 165 of the Code was illegal. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Appeal against acquittal under Section 358 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Distinction between power to search and manner of making it under the Central Excises and Salt Act and Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Applicability of Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code to searches authorized under Rule 201 of the Central Excise Rules. 4. Jurisdiction and procedure for making a search by excise officers. 5. Legality of search conducted without following Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 6. Impact of not recording reasons for search by the Deputy Superintendent. 7. Argument regarding irregularity in not recording reasons for search. Analysis: The case involved an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent under Section 358 of the Indian Penal Code. The Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise conducted a search at the respondent's house without following the procedures outlined in Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant contended that the search was illegal as it did not comply with the statutory provisions governing searches under the Central Excises and Salt Act and the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant raised two main points before the Supreme Court. Firstly, they argued that there is a distinction between the power to search and the manner of conducting the search under the Central Excises and Salt Act and the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant emphasized that the Deputy Superintendent's search did not align with the procedures specified in Section 165 of the Code, which applies to searches made by police officers during the investigation of an offense. The appellant asserted that the excise officer should have followed the procedural requirements of Section 165. Secondly, the appellant contended that the recording of reasons for a search does not confer jurisdiction on the officer but is a necessary condition for conducting a search. The appellant highlighted that Section 18 of the Act mandates searches to be carried out following the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, particularly Section 165. The Court agreed with the appellant's arguments and held that the search conducted by the Deputy Superintendent without complying with Section 165 was illegal. The Court also addressed the argument that the failure to record reasons for the search was merely an irregularity and did not give the respondent the right to obstruct the search. However, the Court dismissed this contention, stating that it was not raised earlier and could not be considered at that stage. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, confirming the acquittal of the respondent under Section 358 of the Indian Penal Code.
|
