Search for specific stolen property and further investigation on fresh information were upheld under criminal procedure law.

Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was held not to prohibit a search for specific stolen property, only a general search for stolen property; on that basis the search was upheld as lawful and bona fide, so no damages were payable. The forwarding of a report under section 173 did not bar further investigation, because the law does not confine a crime to a single investigation and a further inquiry may begin on fresh information. The challenge to the search therefore failed, and the second appeal was rejected on the merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a search for specific stolen property was authorised under section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and, if lawful and bona fide, could sustain a claim for damages; (ii) whether the forwarding of a report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 barred further investigation.

Issue (i): whether a search for specific stolen property was authorised under section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and, if lawful and bona fide, could sustain a claim for damages.

Analysis: Section 165 was held not to prohibit a search for specific stolen property, but only a general search for stolen property. The search in question was treated as a search for specific stolen property, and its legality was upheld. The search was also found to have been made bona fide, which negatived any basis for damages.

Conclusion: The search was lawful, and no damages were payable.

Issue (ii): whether the forwarding of a report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 barred further investigation.

Analysis: The submission that investigation ended once a report had been sent under section 173 was rejected. It was held that the law does not limit the number of investigations into a crime, and that a further investigation may commence upon receipt of additional information.

Conclusion: Section 173 did not bar further investigation.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the search failed, the claim for damages failed, and the second appeal was rejected on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 permits a search for specific stolen property, and the completion of one investigation does not preclude a further investigation on fresh information.

---