V. S. KUTIAN PILLAI versus RAMAKRISHNAN & ANR.

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 673 · Decided: 18-09-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1 
• 
• 
t 
• 
673 
V. S. KUTIAN PILLAI 
A 
v. 
RAMAKRISHNAN & ANR. 
September 18, 1979 
[D. A. DESAI AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sections 91 and 93(1)(c)-Scope of 
-Appellants office bearers of a Sabha-Warrant under s. 93(1)(c) issued 
for search and seizure of documents-Search warrant if violates fundan1ental 
right under Article 20(3) of Constitution . 
Constitution of India-Article 20(3)-Right if violated by issue of search 
C 
warrant under s. 93(1)(c) of Cr.P.C., 1973. 
Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers power on 
the court or an officer in charge of a police station to issue a summons or 
written order to any person in whose possession or power a document the 
production of which the court or the officer considers necessary or desirabla 
for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under 
D 
the Code calling upon him to produce the document 
Section 93 of the Code contemplates three situations in which the court 
may issue a search warrant : (a) where the Court has reason to believe that 
a person to whom the summons or order under s. 91 has been or might be 
addressed will not or would not produce the document or thing as required 
b¥ such summons or requisition or (b) where such document or thing is not 
E 
known to the court to be in the possession of any person or ( c) where the 
CO'tlrt considers that the purposes of any enquiry, trial or other proceeding 
under this code will not be served by a general search or inspection, then 
it may issue a search warrant; and the person to whom such warrant 
is 
directed may search or inspect in accordance therewith and the provisions 
contained in the Code. 
The complainant (respondent no. 1) made 'an application 
before 
a 
magistrate for the issue of a warrant fi;>r the search and seizure of certain 
books and documents of a Sabha of which the accused were offlce·beare1s. 
After the seizure of the books and documents, on the application of one of 
the accused persons, the magistrate directed their return to the persons from 
whom they were recovered. 
In the respondent revision petition the High 
Court held that the provisions contained in s. 93(1) of the Cr.P.C. were not 
hit by Art. 20(3) of the Constitution. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : The High Court was right in sustaining the general search 
warrant under s. 93(1)(c) of the Code. 
[682 HJ 
p 
1. The immunity against self incrimination extends to any incriminating 
H 
evidence which the accused may be compelled to give but does· not extend 
to cover a situation where evidence which may have tendency to incrinate' 
A 
B 
c 
D 
674 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1980] l s.c.R. 
the accused is being coUected without' compelling him to be a party to the 
collection of the evidence. 
The search of the premises occupied by the 
accused, without compelling the accused to be party to such search, would 
not be violative of Art. 20(3) of the Constitution. [682 CJ 
2. A search and seizure pursuant to a search warrant under s. 93(1)(c) 
of the Code wou1d not have the remotest tendency to 'Compel an accused 
to incriminate himself. 
He is not required to participate in the search. 
He 
may remain a passive spectator or may even be absent. 
Merely because the 
accused is occupying the premises to be searched it cannot be said that by 
such search and consequent seizure of documents, including the documenti; 
which may contain statements attributable to the personal knowledge of the 
accused and which may have a tendency to incrimina-te him, would violate 
the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination because he is not com-
pelled to do anything. 
A passive submission to search cannot be styled as 
compulsion on the accused to submit to search. If anything 
is 
recovered 
during the search which may provide .incriminating evidenc.e against the accused 
it cannot be called a compelled testimony. [681 G·HJ 
3. Section 93(1)(c) comprehends a situation where a search warrant can 
be issued as the court is unaware of not only the person but even the place 
where the documents may be found and that a general search is necessary. 
Therefore, power of the court ·under this clause cannot be cut down by im-
porting some of the requirements of cl. (b) of the s. 93(1). [682 F-G] 
In the instant case although the order of the . magistrate was laconic 
certain important aspect.;; could not be over-looked. The objects of the Sabh~ 
t; 
were

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