M. P. SHARMA AND OTHERS versus SATISH CHANDRA, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DELHI, AND OTHERS

Citation: [1954] 1 S.C.R. 1077 · Decided: 15-03-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1077 
rendering services which the 
State considers beneficial 
in the public interests and which the 
people 
have to 
accept whether they are willing or not. 
Our conclusion, 
therefore, is that section 58 is not ultra vires 
of the 
State 
Legislature by reason of the fact 
that it is not a 
tax but a fee 
which 
comes 
within 
the purview 
of 
entry 47 of List III in 
Schedule VII of the 
Consti-
tution. 
The result, therefore, is that in our 
opinion 
the 
appeals are allowed only in part and a mandamus 
will 
issue 
in each of 
these cases 
restraining 
the 
State 
Government and 
the 
Charity 
Commissioner 
from 
enforcing against the appellants the following provisions 
of the Act to wit :-
( i) Section 44 of 
the 
Act to the extent 
relates to 
the appointment of the 
Charity 
s10ner as a 
trustee of religious public trust 
court, 
that it 
Commis-
by the 
(ii) the provisions 
of 
clauses (3) 
to 
(6) 
of 
section 47, and 
(iii) clause (c) of section 55 and 
the 
part 
of 
clause ( 1) of section 56 corresponding thereto. 
The other prayers of the appellants stand dismissed. 
Each party will bear 
his own costs 
m 
both 
the 
appeals. 
M. P. SHARMA AND OTHERS 
tJ. 
SATISH CHANDRA, DIS1'RICT MAGISTRATE, 
DELHI, AND OTHERS. 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN c. J., MDKHERJEA, 
S. R. DAs, V1vIAN BosE, GHDLAM HASAN, 
BHAGWATI, JAGANNADHADAS and 
VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.J 
Constitution 
of India, arts. 
19(1)(!) and 20(3)-Search 
war-
rant issued under s. 96(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V 
of 1898)-Whether ultra vires art. 19(1~(!)-Search and seizure of 
1954 
Ratilol 
Panackarul 
Gandhi 
V, 
Tiet Stat. ef 
Bombay atlld 
Others. 
Mukherjeo]. 
1954 
March 15. 
1954 
M. P. Sharma 
and Others 
v. 
Satish Chandra, 
District 
Magistrate, 
Delhi, 
and Others. 
1078 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19541 
documents under :s. 94 and 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure-
T:Vhether compelltd production thereof-Within the meaning of art. 
20(3). 
Held, that the provision for the search warrant under the first 
alternative of s. 96( 1) of the Code of Crin1inal Procedure does not 
offend art. 19(1)(£) of the Constitution. 
A 
search and seizure is only a temporary 
interference 
with 
the right to hold the property searched and tht: 
articles 
seized. 
Statutory recognition in this behalf is a 
necessary 
and reasonable 
restriction and cannot per se be 
considered 
to 
be 
unconstitu-
tional. 
A compelled production of incriminating documents 
by a per-
son against whom a First Information 
Report has been made is 
testimonial compulsion within the meaning 
of art. 20(3) 
of the 
Constitution. 
But a search and seizure of a document under the 
provisions of ss. 94 and 96 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure is 
not a compelled production thereof within the meaning 
of art. 20 
( 3) and hence does not offend the said Article. 
A power of search and seizure is, in any 
system of jurispru-
dence, an overriding power of the State for the protection of social 
security and 
that power is 
necessarily regulated by law. When 
the Constitution makers have thought fit not to subject such regu-
lation to constitutional limitations by recognition 
of the 
funda-
mental right to privacy, analogous to the American Fourth Amend-
ment, there is no justification for in:o.porting into 
it, 
a totally 
different fundamental right by some process of 
strained construc-
tion. 
Scope and connotation of art. 20(3) explained. 
fohn Lilburn"s Case (3 
State Trials 1315), 
Boyd 
v. United 
States (116 U.S. 616), Weeks v. United States, (232 U.S. 383), Feliz 
Gould v. United States (255 U.S. 298), Entick v. Carrington (19 
State Trials 1030), Hale v. Henkel (201 U.S. 43), and Satya Kinkar 
Roy v. Nikhil 
Chandra 
fyotis!iopadhaya (A.LR. 1951 Cal. 
104) 
referred to. 
ORIGINAL 
JuR1so1cT10N PETITIONS Nos. 372 and 375 
of 1953. 
Original petition under article 32 of the Constitution 
of India for the enforcement of fundamental right. 
Veda Vyas and Daulat Ram Kalia (S. K. Kapur and 
Ganpat Rai, with them) for the petitioners. 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for 
India (Porus 
A. Mehta and A. M. Chatterjee, 
with him) 
for the 
respondents. 
1954. March 15. 
The Judgment of the 
Court was 
delivered by JAGANNAD!cLD.\S J. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1079 
JAGANNADHADAS 
J.-These two applications are for 
relief under article 32 of the Constitution arising 
out 
of similar and connected set of facts 
and are 
dealt 
with together. 

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