STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus JAYANTI LAL AND OTHERS

Citation: [1984] 2 S.C.R. 431 · Decided: 17-01-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
.. 
431 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
IA YANTl LAL AND OTHERS 
January I 7; 1948 
[S; MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND RANGANATH MISRA JJ.). 
. 
........._ 
Forward Cont;acts (Reguliition) ACt, i9_52 Section 22A .. and 22B as if!serted bji · 
· Y ·1he·Amending Act 6_2 of 1960, .:__ Whether the two newly iitserted sections exclude tht 
..... \, irpplicatiOn of secii"on S(i) Of Criminal Procedure f!ode--Whelhf!'.' the pte'sumptio"ns. 
provided under section 228 of the Act would be available in_ respect of /:Jaoks of account 
and docume':lfS_ seized ilz investigations u11de.r the Code, -'.where _actio'n has not been 
taken under section 22A. 
Jf 
Dismi~sing t.he appeal by Speci8.I Leave, the". Court,_ 
• 
HELD : · 1 By s~tions 22 A and 22B, inserted into· the Forward Contracts 
(Regulation) Act; 1952, by the Amending Act 62 of 1960, the app!ication"ofthe pro-
visibns of secti0n_5(2) of the Criminal .Procedure Code in resPect o.f offences under 
the Act was not excluded. Therefore, even with these provisions.in the Act, it wa1 
. open to··the prosecution to make investigations under the Code and in exercise of 
the powers vested·under Section 165 ther~f, sear-ch..at)d seizure· could be effectc:;d . 
[436H, 437 A]· 
2. Seetion 22A of the Forward:.Contract (Reglllaiion) Act is a ·Special pro 
vision 
prescribing 
a . P"rticular procedure .. Section 
22B(1) doeS 
refer. to 
~ documents sei~d from any pla. ce as referred to ins. 22Aq). dr<lin8ril.y, iri a criminal 
' \ pr~secutio·n the. burden to· prove the charge is on t~e pros"ecutor. , A special rule of 
cvid~ce·has been provid~d by raising a presumption as a result of _which the burden 
whichordinitrily lay o~ the prOsecutioh has bee·n shifted to the defence. 
[~5C-E] 
The mannC~ in· -which~ the· two riew .. pr~vi~ions .have come into thC .~ct." the-
plicement of tbe ·two proyjsionS; reference to books of aCcollnt an.Ci dOcuffientJt 
seizea from any place in s. 22B(l) which are words used· in s.22A(i), and tho fac 
-that Parliament has prescribed a specia1 procedute of authorisation by a magistrate 
and has prescribed s.pecia~· cred_cnce. to be given to these documeiits seized pursuant 
to the particu1.ar procedure prescribed, Jead to ·the oti1y conclusion that. the benefit 
of s. 22B of the Act is confined to books of account and doCu.menrs which· have.been· 
seized Pursuant to a warrant authorising a police officer pot below the ~artk ·of 
sub-inspector as prescribed in s.22A(l) of the Act .. A s~ia1. mode wa·s prescribed 
requiring magisterial warrant; al~thotisation of a police officer not.below the rank_ ·of 
a sub-inspector, the Plaee to be searched.was required to be specified in warrant; 
magisterial cOntrol was prescribed over·the investigation and when these 
condi~ . 
. tions Weft'. satisfied,.the special rule of evjdenCe beca~e S:pplicable,. .. "[435 ~-G] 
., 
. Admittedly the~. is n~ indication in. s.",22B of the. Ac't as .to Whether eQii:ies in 
.B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
432 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1984] 2 s.c.R. 
A 
the books of account and doculnents seized without the aid of s.22A(l} would have 
the benefit of such presumption. But since a special procedure has been indicated 
in -s.22A and s. 22ij which is with referenc;e to s. 22A has.provided the special n1ode 
.of evidence, that in order to have the benefit of s. 22B of the Act, the prosecution 
must have carried on the' search and seizure of.ihe books of account and documents 
in the manner J:?fescribed uncfef s. 22A(l) of the Act. Unless the st)ecial procedure 
has b~n followed, the special rule of ev:idencd· under s. 22B of the Act would not 
B 
be attracted: [ 4J5H, 4l6A-Bl 
3. Since it would be open to the prosecution to carry on investigation of 
offences under the nor1nal pfov:isions _of tha Code as· also by invoking the Special 
• 
Provisions in s. 2iA of the Act, 'two separate positiods ·would arise 'vith reference 
1 
to seiz.ed books of account and .other'documents. Whens. -22A of the Act has been 
invoked the presumpti_on under ·s.22B of the Act would. arise. when investigation 
C 
has been carried under the Code without the aid of s. 22A of the Act, the presumption 
. "-\ 
would not arise and the prosecution will have to prove the documents according to 
·' 
the Ordinary· rule of evidence. There is nothing anon1~lous because in one· case the 
...-
D 
norinal rule of~evidence would apply and in.·the other, whefe the spedal _inode has 
bee~ invoked, the presumptions would arise. Such a situatiOn is no.t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.