9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Legality of the search conducted by the Excise Inspector without a warrant and witnesses. 2. Admissibility of evidence obtained during an allegedly illegal search. 3. Compliance with procedural requirements under the U.P. Excise Act and Cr. P.C. Analysis: Issue 1: Legality of the search The accused was found in possession of cocaine during a search conducted by the Excise Inspector without a search warrant from the Collector and without two search witnesses as required by law. The defense argued that the search was illegal due to the lack of a warrant and witnesses. The court noted that Section 53 of the U.P. Excise Act allows for searches without a warrant under certain circumstances, provided that the grounds for such belief are recorded. The Excise Inspector failed to record the grounds for his belief, constituting a serious irregularity. However, the court found that the evidence of the excisable article found in the accused's possession was clear and accepted by the lower courts, which mitigated the impact of the irregularity. Issue 2: Admissibility of evidence The court cited precedents to establish that the absence of a search warrant does not render a subsequent conviction illegal if satisfactory evidence of the excisable article's possession is presented. Even though procedural requirements were not fully met, the court emphasized that the primary consideration is the reliability and necessity of the search in the public interest. As long as the evidence of the offense is strong and reliable, the irregularities in the search process do not bar the conviction. Issue 3: Compliance with procedural requirements The defense also argued that the search was illegal under Section 103 of the Cr. P.C. as the Excise Inspector did not have two respectable inhabitants accompany him during the search. The court acknowledged the importance of complying with such provisions but highlighted that if due to circumstances, the required witnesses were unavailable, the search could still lead to a valid conviction based on the evidence presented. The court referred to a previous case where an illegal search did not prevent a conviction. Ultimately, the court found no reason to interfere with the conviction, deeming the sentence appropriate, and dismissed the application challenging the conviction. In conclusion, the judgment upheld the conviction of the accused for possession of cocaine, despite procedural irregularities in the search process, emphasizing the importance of strong and reliable evidence in establishing guilt.
|
