TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (11) TMI 433
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scharged the respondent from the offence under Section 20. On revisions, the High Court by the impugned order dated June 4, 1992 made in Criminal Revision No. 118/87 confirmed the same. Thus this appeal by special leave. 3. The question is whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified, at the stage of taking cognizance of the offence, in discharging the accused, even before the trial was conducted on merits, on the ground that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act had not been complied with. This Court in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh has considered the provisions of the Act. Section 50 has been held to be mandatory. In paragraph 16, this Court has held that it is obligatory on the part of the empowered or the authorised officer to inform the suspect that, if so required, he would be produced before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and search would be conducted in his presence. It was imperative on the part of the officer to inform the person of the above right and if he failed to do the same, it amounted to violation of the requirement of Section 50 of the Act. It was held that when the person was searched he must have been aware of his right and that it could be done on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by itself is not a restriction on the right to hold and enjoy property, though seizure is a temporary restriction to the right to possession and enjoyment of the property seized. However, the seizure will be only temporary and limited for the purpose of the investigation. The power of search and seizure is an accepted norm in our criminal law envisaged in Sections 96 to 103 and 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [for short, "the Code"]. The Evidence Act permits relevancy as the only test of admissibility of evidence. The evidence obtained under an illegal search and seizure does not exclude relevant evidence on that ground. It is wrong to invoke the spirit of Constitution to exclude such evidence. The decisions of the American Supreme Court spelling out certain Constitutional protections in regard to search and seizure are not applicable to exclude the evidence obtained on an illegal search. Courts in India refuse to exclude relevant evidence merely on the ground that it is obtained by illegal search and seizure. When the test of admissibility of evidence lies in relevancy, unless there is an express or necessarily implied prohibition in the Constitution or other law, evidenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... court would hold that the evidence would be relied upon. 8. In Sunder Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that under Section 103 of the CrPC, 1898 though respectable inhabitants of the locality were not associated with the search, that circumstance would not invalidate the search. It would only affect the weight of the evidence in support of the search and the recovery. At the highest, the irregularity in the search and the recovery would not affect legality of the proceedings. In State of Maharashtra v. P.K. Pathak it was held that absence of any independent witness from the locality to witness the search does not affect the trial and the conviction of the accused under the Customs Act. In Matajog Dubey v. H.C. Bahri it was held that when the salutary provisions have not been complied with, it may, however, affect the weight of the evidence in support of the search or may furnish a reason for disbelieving the evidence produced by the prosecution unless the prosecution properly explains such circumstances which made it impossible for it to comply with these provisions. In Balbir Singh's case [supra[this Court held that if the provisions of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... FIR/charge-sheet/complaint. In that case the Court held that the FIR should not be quashed since it disclosed prima facie cognisable offences to proceed further in the investigation. In Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj and Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Anr. this Court reiterated the above view and held that when the complaint or charge-sheet filed disclosed prima facie evidence the Court would not weigh at that stage and find out whether offence could be made out. The order of the High Court exercising the power under Article 226, was accordingly set aside. 12. It is thus settled law that the exercise of inherent power of the High Court is an exceptional one. Great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinise the FIR/charge-Sheet/complaint. In deciding whether the case is rarest of rare cases to scuttle the prosecution in its inception, it first has to get into the grip of the matter whether the allegations constitute the offence. It must be remembered the FIR is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into cognisable offence. After the investigation is conducted and the charge-sheet is laid the prosecution produces the statements of the witn....