TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether non-compliance with the search requirements under the Code of Criminal Procedure justified obstruction of the officers and could sustain convictions for wrongful confinement and use of criminal force, and whether the conviction under the charge under section 332 could stand.
Analysis: The Court held that even assuming the search was irregular or illegal, any such defect was confined to the search and seizure stage and did not confer a licence to obstruct, forcibly confine, or compel the officers to act against their will. Obstruction, if any, may relate to the conduct of the search, but once the search had ended, taking the officers back into the office, confining them, and threatening them to obtain a written statement amounted to distinct criminal acts. The Court also found that the requirement to furnish a copy of the seizure list was not violated in substance, because the officer was prevented from completing the memo by the appellants. As to section 332, the respondents did not press its support and the Court treated that conviction as unnecessary to examine further.
Conclusion: The convictions under sections 342 and 353 were upheld, while the conviction under section 332 was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: An irregularity or illegality in search and seizure does not justify subsequent obstruction, wrongful confinement, or other independent criminal acts against the officers conducting the search.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
