Lawful police search for specifically identified stolen articles upheld; no damages awarded against the officer.

A police search directed to specifically identified stolen articles, already listed and supplied to investigators, was treated as a lawful search under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The court held that such a search was not a roving or general search and therefore did not fall outside the statutory power. It also rejected the view that the search provisions could not apply to stolen or incriminating articles in the possession of a suspect. On that basis, no damages were recoverable against the police officer, and the plaintiff's claim failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the police search of the plaintiff's house for listed stolen articles was lawful under Sections 94 and 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether damages could be awarded against the police officer for an alleged illegal search.

Analysis: The search was directed to specific articles identified in a list already supplied to the police in connection with the theft. That did not amount to a roving or general search for stolen property. A search for specified stolen articles, in the circumstances of the investigation, was held to fall within the statutory power and not to be unlawful. The earlier view that the provisions did not extend to stolen articles or incriminating things in the possession of an accused person was not accepted as stating the law correctly.

Conclusion: The search was lawful, no liability in damages was made out against the police officer, and the plaintiff's claim against him failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A search by a police officer for specifically identified stolen articles, pursuant to information already in police possession, is not a general search and is not illegal under the search provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

---