GOPI & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 490 · Decided: 03-02-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

490 
GOPI & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
February 3, 1970 
A 
[M. H!DAYATULLAH, C.J., A. N. RAY AND I. D. DuA, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898), ss. 165 & 166(3)-
Power of officer of a police station to conduct search of premises located 
in the jurisdiction of another 
police 
station-Recording of reasons of 
search-Presurnption in favour of official acts under s. 114 Evidence Act, 
1872-Bona tides of search-Right of private defence against police party. 
On the basis of a First Information Report regarding loss df a buffalo 
lodged at police station, Chhainsa, the Sub-Inspector of that police station 
sought to search the house of the appellants situated in the jurisdiction o'( 
police station, Dankaur. 
The appellants and several others resisted 
the 
search and caused injuries to the police party, for which they were prose-
cuted under varioLJ5 sections of the Indian Penal Code. 
The appellants 
along \Vith certain others were convicted by the trial court and their appeals 
were disallowed by the High Court. 
By special 
leave they appealed to 
this Court. contending : (i) that the officer of a police station cannot 
carry out a search in the jurisdiction of another police. station without the 
permission o'f the Station House Officer of that station; in the present case 
the reason given by the Sub-Inspector for not taking such permission, 
nan1ely, that the local police was in league with the appeUants did not 
satisfy the terms of s. 166(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (ii) 
that the search '"'as. also illegal for the reason that the Sub-Inspector be· 
fore attempting 1he search did not record his 
reason5 
as required by 
ss. 165 & 166 of t'e Code; (iii) that being illegal the search was not bona 
fide: (iv) that thie appellants \Vere entitled to the right of private de'fence 
since the~ thought that the raiding party were decoits dre5sed as police-
men. 
·HELD : (i} In the case of stolen cattle, time is of the essence, be-
cau5e once the animal is removed 
and mixed up with others, it is very 
difficult to spot it in the big herds common in these places. 'fherefore if 
the police officer had reason to believe that the police officers at Dankaur 
"·ould take their own time because they were mixed up with the accused 
party. he had full jurisdiction in taking recourse to sub-s. (3) of s. 166 
and to carry out the seHrch himself. !493 G-I-IJ 
(ii) No questions y;ere put to the Sub-Inspector 
to elicit from him 
\\·hether the ·reasons 'for the search were recorded or not. 
Regard being 
had to the regularity of official acts it must be presumed that the Sub-
Jnspector must haye taken the precaution to record his reasons. [494 A] 
(iii) Jn the circumstances of the case the search was legal and bona 
fide. [494 Bl 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
(iv) The accused \i.:ere in'tormed by the Sub-Inspector that it was the 
police party \vhich had come and they had no ·reason to attack the police 
party either as dacoits or in self-defence in any other form. [494 CJ 
ff 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No 
159 of 1967. 
GOP! v. U.P. STATE (Hidayatullah, C.J.) 
491 
A 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
April 28, 1967 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal 
No. 2195 of 1964. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Anil Kumar Gupta, R. A. Gupta and Uma Datta, for the 
appellant. 
0. P. Rana, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, C.J. The appellants are five in number who 
were pros~cuted originally with 11 others under diverse sections 
of the Indian Penal Code which included sections 147 and 148 
of the Indian Penal Code and ss. 333 and 353 read with s. 149 
of the Indian Penal Code. 
Of the original 16 accused in the case, 
11 were acquitted in the Court ct Session. The High Court, on 
appeal, confirmed their convictions with some modifications and 
reduced the sentences passed on them. 
As a result of the High 
Court's judgment, one of the appellants Gopi stands convicted . 
under s. 326 of the Indian Penal Code with a sentence of six 
months' rigorous imprisonment and under s. 148 of the Indian 
Penal Code with a like sentence, the two sentences of imprison-
ment to run concurrently. 
Others are convicted only under s. 147 
of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to imprison-
ment already undergone by them which we are told was in the 
neighbourhood of two weeks. 
They now appeal by special leave 
against their conviction and sentence

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.