Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a trap laid by the Vigilance Department to catch police officials at a traffic barrier demanding bribes. On 26-5-1965, the owner of a lorry complained that the Barrier Inspector demanded Rs. 5 per trip or Rs. 40 per month; he offered signed currency notes for a trap. Circle Inspector Rana Ranjit Singh (P.W.1) along with the complainant, driver, and panchas went to Multai Barrier. The driver gave Rs. 40 in four currency notes to Constable Narayan Singh inside the barrier office. When P.W.1 approached, Narayan Singh hid the notes under an overcoat in an inner apartment. P.W.1 recovered the notes and began preparing a seizure memo. Appellants Shyam Lal Sharma (Barrier Inspector) and Udho Prasad arrived, questioned P.W.1's authority, and demanded a written statement that he entered without permission. When P.W.1 left the office to go to Dak Bungalow, Shyam Lal caught him by waist, forcibly brought him back, and threatened him with a lathi until he gave a copy of the seizure memo and a writing that search was taken. P.W.1 had not recorded grounds of belief as required by Section 165 Cr.P.C. before the search. The trial court held assault, wrongful restraint, and wrongful confinement proved but acquitted the accused because Section 165 Cr.P.C. was not complied with. The High Court reversed, holding non-observance of Section 165 Cr.P.C. was a mere irregularity, and convicted the appellants under Sections 332, 353, and 342 IPC. The appellants contended in the Supreme Court that the illegal search due to non-recording of reasons under Section 165 Cr.P.C. and non-supply of copy of seizure memo under Section 103 Cr.P.C. vitiated the entire investigation and gave them a right to obstruct. The Supreme Court held that obstruction to search is a defensive act only during the search; once the search ended and the officer left the premises, forcibly bringing him back and compelling him to act was not justified. The court found no non-compliance with Section 103 because P.W.1 was prevented from completing the copy and he offered to give it soon after. The court also rejected the argument that the illegality of search continues until filing of charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C., as that would thwart public justice. The court upheld convictions under Sections 342 and 353 IPC (with Section 34 for Udho Prasad) but set aside conviction under Section 332 IPC without deciding its legality. The appeals were dismissed to that extent.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Search and Seizure - Non-recording of reasons for search under Section 165 does not render search illegal or give right to obstruct after search concluded - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 165 - The investigating officer failed to record grounds of belief before conducting a search during a trap; appellants claimed this made the search illegal and entitled them to obstruct. The Court held that even if the search was irregular, the person whose premises were searched had no right to assault or wrongfully confine the officer after the search had ended; obstruction to search is a defensive act during the search, but compelling the officer to return and act under threat after leaving the premises is not justified. Held that conviction under Sections 353 and 342 IPC was proper. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Criminal Procedure - Search and Seizure - Copy of seizure memo under Section 103 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 103 - The investigating officer was preparing a copy of the seizure memo but was prevented from completing it because the appellants asked the constable not to sign it; the officer then offered to provide the copy at the Dak Bungalow. The Court held that Section 103 does not mandate immediate delivery of the copy, and since there was no opportunity to raise suspicion about the authenticity of the seized articles, there was no non-compliance. Held that the investigation was not vitiated on this ground. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Criminal Law - Offences Against Public Servant - Wrongful confinement and obstruction under Sections 342 and 353 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 342, 353 - The appellants forcibly brought the officer back into the office and threatened him with a lathi to make him write a memo, which constituted wrongful confinement and obstruction. The Court held that the illegality of the search, even if any, did not continue through the whole process of investigation until filing of charge-sheet, and did not justify such acts. Held that conviction under Sections 342 and 353 was justified. (Paras Not mentioned) D) Criminal Law - Private Defence - Right to obstruct illegal search does not extend to criminal force after search concluded - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 34 read with Sections 342, 353 - The appellants claimed private defence on the ground that the search was illegal, but the Court held that P.W.1 acted in a bona fide manner and non-compliance with Section 165 Cr.P.C. was a mere irregularity; therefore, the appellants were not justified in manhandling the officer. The Court set aside conviction under Section 332 IPC without going into its legality. Held that conviction under Sections 342 and 353 IPC (with Section 34 for one appellant) was affirmed. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether non-compliance with Section 165 Cr.P.C. (failure to record reasons for search) and Section 103 Cr.P.C. (failure to give copy of seizure memo) vitiated the investigation and gave the accused a right to obstruct, assault, and wrongfully confine the investigating officer; whether conviction under Sections 342 and 353 IPC was sustainable despite such irregularities.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the conviction of appellant Shyam Lal Sharma under Sections 342 and 353 IPC, and of appellant Udho Prasad under Sections 353 and 342 read with Section 34 IPC. The conviction under Section 332 IPC was set aside without going into its legality. The sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, was upheld as modified.
Law Points
- Non-recording of reasons under Section 165 Cr.P.C. does not render search ipso facto illegal or confer right to obstruct after search concluded
- obstruction to search is defensive act only during search
- compulsion after leaving premises is not justified
- non-compliance with Section 103 Cr.P.C. not established when officer prevented from completing seizure memo and offered copy soon after
- illegality of search does not continue through entire investigation
- private defence not available when officer acted bona fide
