SHYAM LAL SHARMA, ETC. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 422 · Decided: 09-02-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

422 
SHY AM LAL SHARMA, ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF l\IADHYA PRADESH 
February 9, 1972 
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.J 
C,vde of Cri111i11t1l Procedure, ss. 165, 537-Reasons for search not 
recorded-Alleged illegality of search on this ground does not give to 
accused right to obstruct s11ibsequent investigation by physical assault and 
wrongful confine1nent of p'erson conducting investigation-Conviction of 
those wh~ do so· u11der s. 353 and 342 l.P.C. is justified. 
Because of allegations that the lnspe~tor of a traffic barrier was de .. 
nlanding bribe from a lorry d'river u trap was arranged. It was led by a 
Circle Inspector (P.W. !). The decoy witness handed over Rs. 4-0 in 
currency notes to constable N inside the harrier office. Thereafter a 
signal was given to the police party. 
When N saw P.W. 1 approaching 
he hid the aforesaid currency not~s in an inner apartment of the office 
under nn overcoat. P .W. 1 made a search of the premises and recOvered 
the notes from under the -overcoat. When he was preparing the Panch-
nama appellant U arrived on the scene and took P.W. 1 to task for 
having entered his office without permission or reference to him. 
He 
then asked N not to sign the seizure memo. 
While this altercation \\·as 
going on appellant S, the Barrier Inspector, arrived there and he also 
reprimanded P.W. 1 and questioned his authority. Even though P.W. I 
asserted that authority was conferred on him to make a search, S asked 
him to give him in writing that he had entered the barrier office without 
the permission of the person in-charge otherwise he would not be allowed 
to go out. 
P.W. 1 agreed to give the writing at the Dak Bungalow and 
moved out of the office but he was brought back by force and a threat 
to beat him with a danda was held out. 
Under threat from S and U 
P.W. 1 8'!'V• them a copy of the seizure memo as also a \\tiling to the 
effect that a search was taken. On these facts, S. U and N were charged 
under ss. 353 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial 'Court while 
holding that assault, wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement were 
proved against the appellants nevertheless acquitted them because the 
provisions of s. 165 CriminaL Procedure Code relating to search were 
not complied with. The High Court in appeal by the State held that 
the non-observance of the provisions of s. 165 Cr.P.C. were a mere ir-
regularity and on this view convicted the appellants under ss. 332. 353 
and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants in appeals by 
special leave contended before this Court that (i) since the search was 
made without recording reasons as required under s. 165 Cr.P.C. they 
had a right to' obstruct it and (ii) since P.W. 1 did not give them a 
copy of the seizure memo as required by s. 103 Cr. P.C. the entire 
investigation was vitiated and consequently any obstruction caused in 
the subsequent process of investigation \vould not constitute ariy offence. 
HELD : It may be that an obstruction during the course of a search 
not conducted in conformity with the provisions of s. 165 Cr. P.C. might 
be justified but there was no warrant for the further submission that the 
person in \VhoSe premises a search ·is made or from whom articles are 
selzed is entllled to act in the manner the appellants had acted in pre-
venting P.W. 1 from discharging his official duties. Obstruction to search 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
s. L. SHARMA v. M.P. STATE (Jaganmohan Redd;y, J.) 
423 
is to the act of the person conducting a search. 
It is a defensive act 
but where search has ended and the persons conducting the search have 
left the premises, to bring them back and make them do things against 
their will is not an obstruction to an act but a compulsion to 
rnak~ 
them act. [ 426 H; 429 H] 
There was no non·compliance with s. 103 Cr. P.C, by P.W. l. He 
was preparing a copy of the seizure memo as required by the section 
but he was prevented from completing it 'by the appellants who asked 
N not to sign it. 
Moreover P.W. 1 had asked the appellants to come 
to the Dak Bungalow and take the copy. Section 103 does not say 
that the copy should be given then and there though qrdinarily that will 
be implied. 
It could be given soon after the search so long as there is 
no opportunity to raise any suspicion or doubt as to the authenticity of 
articles seized. [429 D-E] 
Not to allow P.W. 1 to go to the Dak Bungalow and take him forcibly 
from the road into the 

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