https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169423 Irregularity or illegality in a search and seizure does not justify obstructing officers or committing distinct criminal acts against them. Even if the search under the Code of Criminal Procedure was defective, that defect was confined to the search stage and did not excuse taking the officers back to the office, wrongfully confining them, or threatening them to procure a written statement. The alleged failure to furnish a seizure memo was not made out in substance because the officers were prevented from completing it. Convictions for wrongful confinement and use of criminal force were upheld, while the conviction under section 332 was set aside as unnecessary for further examination. en-us Wed, 09 Feb 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:28:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169423 Irregularity or illegality in a search and seizure does not justify obstructing officers or committing distinct criminal acts against them. Even if the search under the Code of Criminal Procedure was defective, that defect was confined to the search stage and did not excuse taking the officers back to the office, wrongfully confining them, or threatening them to procure a written statement. The alleged failure to furnish a seizure memo was not made out in substance because the officers were prevented from completing it. Convictions for wrongful confinement and use of criminal force were upheld, while the conviction under section 332 was set aside as unnecessary for further examination. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Feb 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169423