1954 (3) TMI 1 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether Section 94 applies to an accused person? Whether there is any element of compulsion in it? Held that - Unable to read Sections 94 and 96(1), Criminal P.C., as importing any statutory recognition of a theory that search and seizure of documents is compelled production thereof. The searches with which we are concerned in the present cases cannot be challenged as illegal on the ground of violation of any fundamental rights and that these applications are liable to be dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
2. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.
3. Legality of the search warrants and seizures conducted.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 20(3) of the Constitution:
The petitioners argued that the searches conducted to obtain documents for investigation into an offence constituted a "compulsory procuring of incriminatory evidence" from the accused, thereby violating Article 20(3) which states, "No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself." The Court analyzed this contention by breaking down Article 20(3) into three components: (1) it pertains to a person "accused of an offence"; (2) it provides protection against "compulsion to be a witness"; and (3) it protects against such compulsion resulting in giving evidence "against himself."

The Court noted that the phrase "to be a witness" includes not only oral testimony but also the production of documents or other forms of evidence. However, the Court distinguished between compelled production of documents by the accused and the seizure of documents by law enforcement officers. The Court concluded that search and seizure conducted by officers under a magistrate's warrant do not constitute compelled testimony by the accused and hence do not violate Article 20(3).

2. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution:
The petitioners contended that the searches and seizures were unreasonable and constituted a serious restriction on their right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f). The Court held that a search by itself is not a restriction on the right to hold and enjoy property. While seizure and carrying away of property temporarily restrict possession and enjoyment, such interference is considered reasonable and necessary for investigation purposes.

The Court emphasized that statutory regulation of search and seizure is a necessary and reasonable restriction and cannot be deemed unconstitutional per se. Any damage caused by such temporary interference, if found to be in excess of legal authority, could be addressed in other proceedings. Therefore, the Court found no violation of Article 19(1)(f) in this case.

3. Legality of the Search Warrants and Seizures Conducted:
The Court examined the legality of the search warrants issued under Section 96 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners argued that the search warrants were illegal and that the procedure under Sections 94 and 96 implied compelled production of documents. The Court noted that Section 96(1) has three alternatives for issuing search warrants, and the requirement of previous notice or summons for production applies only to the first alternative. The Court found no basis in Indian law to treat search and seizure as compelled production.

The Court also considered the historical context of search provisions in Indian statutory legislation and concluded that search and seizure are distinct from compelled production. The judicial function of issuing search warrants by a magistrate serves as a safeguard against arbitrary searches, and the existence of occasional errors does not imply circumvention of constitutional guarantees.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the applications, holding that the searches in question did not violate any fundamental rights under Articles 20(3) or 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The Court left open the possibility for the petitioners to raise other allegations of high-handedness and illegality of the searches before the High Court on appropriate applications. The applications were dismissed without costs.