1918 (3) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Search Conducted by Sub-Inspector Upheld as Legal; Plaintiff Denied Damages

The High Court of Madras upheld the legality of a search conducted by the Sub-Inspector of Guntur, ruling in favor of the defendant's jurisdiction over ... Authority to search for specific stolen property under Section 165 Criminal Procedure Code - Validity of search conducted by a subordinate officer/assistant - Effect of filing of report under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code on further police investigation - Bona fide search and entitlement to damagesValidity of search conducted by a subordinate officer/assistant - Bona fide search and entitlement to damages - Search held to have been conducted by the Sub Inspector and bona fide; no question of the defendant's jurisdiction over the place searched and plaintiff not entitled to damages. - HELD THAT: - The Court found on the material that the Sub Inspector of Guntur conducted the search, so the contention that the defendant lacked jurisdiction over the place searched did not arise. Although it was argued that the defendant only acted as the Sub Inspector's assistant and that this point was not separately framed as an issue, the plea was raised in the written statement and fell within the scope of the framed issue. The search was held to have been carried out bona fide; accordingly, the plaintiff cannot succeed in claiming damages for an illegal search. [Paras 1, 2]Search was conducted by the Sub Inspector, was bona fide, and the plaintiff is not entitled to damages.Authority to search for specific stolen property under Section 165 Criminal Procedure Code - Search for specific stolen property under Section 165 CrPC is permissible; a general search for stolen property is not authorised but a search for specific stolen property is lawful. - HELD THAT: - Relying on precedent considered in Bissar Misser v. Emperor and earlier authorities, the Court rejected the submission that Section 165 CrPC gives no authority to search for stolen property at all. The Court distinguished a general search for stolen property (not authorised) from a targeted search for specific stolen property (authorised) and held that the present search was of the latter character and therefore legal. [Paras 2]The search for specific stolen property under Section 165 CrPC was lawful; the present search was not illegal.Effect of filing of report under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code on further police investigation - Filing of a report under Section 173 CrPC does not preclude further investigations; multiple investigations are not limited by law. - HELD THAT: - The argument that police powers of investigation cease once a report under Section 173 CrPC is submitted was rejected. The Court observed that the law does not limit the number of investigations into a crime and that a fresh investigation may be commenced on receipt of further information. [Paras 2]Submission that a Section 173 report bars further investigation is unsustainable; further investigation may lawfully be undertaken.Final Conclusion: Second appeal dismissed with costs; the search was lawful and bona fide, and the plaintiff's claim for damages fails. The High Court of Madras found that the search conducted by the Sub-Inspector of Guntur was legal and not illegal. The defendant's jurisdiction over the place searched was upheld. The search for specific stolen property was deemed legal, and the plaintiff was not entitled to damages. The second appeal was dismissed with costs.