Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, traders in Nagpur, Maharashtra, challenged the seizure of rice bags from their godowns by the Karnataka Police (respondent No.1) acting on a search warrant issued by the Judicial Magistrate, Gangavathi, Karnataka. The petitioners had purchased Heritage brand rice from suppliers and stored it in godowns in Nagpur. On 24.12.2020, the Karnataka Police, with the assistance of Maharashtra Police (respondents 3 and 4), raided the godowns and seized 6140 bags from petitioner No.1 and 999 bags from petitioner No.2. The petitioners contended that the warrant was issued without jurisdiction as the Magistrate in Karnataka had no authority to order a search in Maharashtra. The court framed the issue of whether a Magistrate can issue a search warrant for execution outside his territorial jurisdiction without following the procedure under Sections 78 or 79 of the CrPC. The petitioners argued that the warrant was invalid and the seizure illegal. The respondents argued that the warrant was valid and the seizure lawful. The court analyzed Sections 93, 94, 100, 165, 166, 78, and 79 of the CrPC and held that a Magistrate's jurisdiction is limited to his territorial limits. A warrant for execution outside such limits requires compliance with Sections 78 or 79 CrPC, which was not done. The court also noted that the proper course for inter-state execution of processes is through letters rogatory under Section 166A CrPC. Consequently, the court quashed the search warrant and directed the return of the seized rice bags to the petitioners. The court also directed the Karnataka Police to follow proper procedure if they wished to investigate further.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Search and Seizure - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 93, 94, 100, 165, 166, 78, 79 CrPC - The court considered whether a Magistrate in Karnataka could issue a search warrant for execution in Maharashtra without following the procedure under Sections 78 or 79 CrPC. Held that a Magistrate's jurisdiction is limited to his territorial jurisdiction and a warrant issued for execution outside such jurisdiction is invalid unless the procedure under Sections 78 or 79 CrPC is followed. The seizure based on such invalid warrant is illegal and liable to be set aside (Paras 7-12). B) Criminal Procedure Code - Letters Rogatory - Comity between States - Section 166A CrPC - The court noted that for execution of processes between states, the proper course is to issue letters rogatory under Section 166A CrPC or follow the procedure under Sections 78 and 79 CrPC. The police of one state cannot directly execute a warrant in another state without such procedure (Paras 11-12). C) Criminal Procedure Code - Search and Seizure - Validity of Warrant - Section 93 CrPC - The court examined the validity of a search warrant issued by a Magistrate in Karnataka for execution in Maharashtra. Held that the warrant was without jurisdiction as the Magistrate had no authority to order search beyond his territorial limits without complying with Sections 78 or 79 CrPC. The seizure was therefore illegal (Paras 7-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Judicial Magistrate in Karnataka can issue a search warrant to be executed in Maharashtra without following the procedure under Section 78 or 79 of the CrPC, and whether the seizure of goods from Nagpur based on such a warrant is valid.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the search warrant dated 22.12.2020 issued by the Judicial Magistrate, Gangavathi, and directed the respondents to return the seized rice bags to the petitioners within two weeks. The court also directed that if the Karnataka Police wished to investigate further, they must follow proper procedure under the CrPC.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction of Magistrate to issue search warrant
- Execution of search warrant outside territorial jurisdiction
- Section 93 CrPC
- Section 94 CrPC
- Section 100 CrPC
- Section 165 CrPC
- Section 166 CrPC
- Section 78 CrPC
- Section 79 CrPC
- Letters Rogatory
- Comity between states
