Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Smt. Kanchan Adhikari and others, challenged an order dated 20.6.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Application No.738 of 2001. The Revisional Court had set aside the order dated 3.10.2001 passed by the J.M.F.C. (A.C) Link Court No.1, Pune, in R.C.C. No.439 of 2001, whereby summons was issued to the petitioners for production of certain materials under Section 91 CrPC. Instead, the Revisional Court issued a search warrant under Section 93(1)(c) CrPC. The petitioners contended that the Revisional Court did not arrive at any finding about the need of the articles for the purpose of the trial or that such articles would be necessary for any purpose in the course of enquiry, trial, or proceeding before the Magistrate. The High Court, upon hearing the learned advocates and perusing the record, observed that the Revisional Court merely held that the Sessions Judge may exercise the powers of the High Court under Section 401 CrPC and proceeded to issue the search warrant without recording any satisfaction. The High Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable and accordingly quashed it. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Search Warrant - Section 93(1)(c) CrPC - Necessity for Trial - The Revisional Court set aside the Magistrate's order issuing summons under Section 91 CrPC and instead issued a search warrant under Section 93(1)(c) CrPC without recording any finding that the articles were necessary for the trial or enquiry. Held that such an order is unsustainable as the court must arrive at a satisfaction that the documents are needed for the proceeding before issuing a search warrant. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Revisional Court could issue a search warrant under Section 93(1)(c) CrPC without recording a finding that the articles were necessary for the purpose of the trial or enquiry.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.6.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Application No.738 of 2001 is quashed. Rule is made absolute.
Law Points
- Search warrant under Section 93(1)(c) CrPC requires satisfaction that documents are necessary for trial
- Revisional Court cannot substitute its own order without recording findings
- Section 91 CrPC summons vs Section 93 CrPC search warrant distinction
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (01) 72
Criminal Writ Petition No.905 of 2002
Mr. Rahul Rao for petitioners, Mr. B.H. Mehta APP for respondent no.1, Mr. Ganesh Gade for respondent no.2
Smt. Kanchan Adhikari, Shri Gautam Adhikari, Shri Markand Adhikari, SABe TV
The State of Maharashtra, Mrs. Lalan Kamalakar Sarang
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging revisional court's order issuing search warrant under Section 93(1)(c) CrPC.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the order dated 20.6.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, issuing search warrant.
Filing Reason
The Revisional Court set aside the Magistrate's order for summons under Section 91 CrPC and issued a search warrant without recording any finding of necessity.
Previous Decisions
Magistrate's order dated 3.10.2001 in R.C.C. No.439 of 2001 issued summons under Section 91 CrPC; Revisional Court set aside that order and issued search warrant under Section 93(1)(c) CrPC.
Issues
Whether the Revisional Court could issue a search warrant under Section 93(1)(c) CrPC without recording a finding that the articles were necessary for the trial or enquiry.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the Revisional Court did not arrive at any finding about the need of the articles for the purpose of the trial or that such articles would be necessary for any purpose in the course of enquiry, trial, or proceeding before the Magistrate.
Ratio Decidendi
A search warrant under Section 93(1)(c) CrPC cannot be issued without the court recording a satisfaction that the documents or articles are necessary for the purpose of the trial, enquiry, or proceeding. The Revisional Court's order was unsustainable as it lacked such a finding.
Judgment Excerpts
The Revisional Court, without arriving at any finding about the need of the articles in question for the purpose of the trial, or that such articles would be necessary for any purpose in the course of enquiry, trial or proceeding before the Magistrate, has proceeded to issue the search warrant for the purpose of seizure of the articles.
Procedural History
The Magistrate (J.M.F.C.) issued summons under Section 91 CrPC on 3.10.2001. The respondent no.2 filed a revision (Criminal Application No.738 of 2001) before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, who set aside the Magistrate's order and issued a search warrant under Section 93(1)(c) CrPC on 20.6.2002. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 91, 93(1)(c), 401
