Search warrant limits under criminal procedure: warrant cannot be used merely to aid investigation without judicial satisfaction.

Section 96(1) authorises a search warrant only for an inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code, and not merely to aid police or customs investigation. The provision may operate before formal proceedings begin if the warrant is genuinely needed for an inquiry about to be made, but that condition was not met here because the warrant was issued to assist investigation. The Court also required independent judicial satisfaction on adequate material; reliance on a bare police statement, without examining the informant or assessing necessity and alternatives, was insufficient. The warrant was therefore unlawful, and the seized documents were ordered to be returned.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a search warrant under Section 96(1) could be issued to aid police or customs investigation, and whether it could be justified as connected with an inquiry already pending or about to be made; (ii) whether the warrant was supported by sufficient judicial consideration and material.

Issue (i): whether a search warrant under Section 96(1) could be issued to aid police or customs investigation, and whether it could be justified as connected with an inquiry already pending or about to be made.

Analysis: The power under Section 96(1) was held to be directed to the purposes of an inquiry, trial, or other proceeding under the Code, and not to a mere police or customs investigation. The distinction between inquiry and investigation was treated as fundamental. At the same time, the provision was construed as permitting a warrant even before formal proceedings begin, where an inquiry is about to be made and the warrant is needed for that purpose. The warrant in this case, however, was issued on the footing that it would assist investigation rather than serve an inquiry or trial under the Code.

Conclusion: The warrant was not justified as a step in aid of investigation, though Section 96(1) can operate before proceedings formally commence if the warrant serves an inquiry or trial under the Code.

Issue (ii): whether the warrant was supported by sufficient judicial consideration and material.

Analysis: A search warrant was required to be issued only after the Court applied its judicial mind and satisfied itself that the statutory conditions existed. The Magistrate acted on a bare police statement, without examining the informant or the customs authority and without ascertaining whether the documents were really needed or whether a less drastic course was available. The material before the Magistrate was therefore inadequate for such a sweeping search and seizure.

Conclusion: The warrant was issued on insufficient material and without the requisite judicial satisfaction, and was unlawful.

Final Conclusion: The rule was made absolute insofar as it related to the seized documents, and the documents were directed to be returned forthwith.

Ratio Decidendi: A general search warrant may issue only when the Court judicially concludes that the search will serve an inquiry, trial, or other proceeding under the Code, and not merely to facilitate investigation, and the order must rest on sufficient material showing the statutory conditions are satisfied.

---