TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the investigating police officer is under a legal requirement to hand over the seal used for sealing samples or seized property to a non-official immediately or soon thereafter. (ii) Whether the non-production of the person, if any, to whom such seal was entrusted is by itself fatal to the prosecution case.
Issue (i): Whether the investigating police officer is under a legal requirement to hand over the seal used for sealing samples or seized property to a non-official immediately or soon thereafter.
Analysis: The relevant police rules only require that seized property, if made into a parcel, be marked, labelled and sealed with the seal impression of the responsible officer and kept in safe custody. They do not prescribe that the seal must be handed over to a third person after use. No statutory provision or binding instruction was shown to create such a mandate. The absence of any such requirement was treated as significant, because the law does not proceed on a presumption that responsible investigating officers are inherently untrustworthy.
Conclusion: There is no statutory or precedential mandate requiring the seal used in investigation to be handed over forthwith to a non-official.
Issue (ii): Whether the non-production of the person, if any, to whom such seal was entrusted is by itself fatal to the prosecution case.
Analysis: The Court held that the prosecution case depends on proof of recovery, identity of the property, proper sealing where necessary, and safe custody of the articles, not on the technical circumstance of who held the seal. The analogy of food adulteration cases did not support a rule that non-production of a seal-holder necessarily vitiates the trial. The Court rejected the assumption that a criminal case must fail merely because a non-official witness connected with the seal is not examined, especially where the evidence otherwise establishes the prosecution case.
Conclusion: Non-production of the person to whom the seal was allegedly entrusted cannot by itself invalidate the prosecution case.
Final Conclusion: The twin legal questions were answered against the petitioners, and the matters were sent back for decision on merits before a Single Bench.
Ratio Decidendi: In criminal trials, the validity of the prosecution does not depend on any legal duty to hand over the investigative seal to a third person or to examine such person as a mandatory witness; the case must be judged on the evidence as a whole and on whether the essential links of recovery, sealing and custody are proved.
TaxTMI 
