Supreme Court of India
K. L. SUBBAYYA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Decided
- 24 January 1979
- Judges listed
- S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1131 · 1979 INSC 18
- Also cited as
- AIR 1979 SC 711
- (1979) 2 SCC 115
- (1979) SCC(CRI) 367
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
FAZAL ALI, J.-In this appeal by Special Leave the appellant has been convicted under section 34 of the Mysore Excise Act and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- for being in pcissession of 48 bottles of liquor which were recovered from a car which was being driven by the appellant. Mr. Javali appearing for the appellant has raised a short point before us. He has submitted that the Inspector of Excise who searched the car along with the panchas had no jurisdiction to do so because he did so without complying with the provisions of section 54 of the. Excise Act. Jn our opinion, the contention is well-founded and must prevail, Section 53 runs thus :
pp. 1131–1132, margin G
"If a Magistrate, upon information and after such inquiry (if any) as he thinks necessary, has reasons to believe that an offence under section 32, section 33, section 34, section 36 or section 37 has been, is being or is likely to be committed, he may issue a warrant-
p. 1132, margin A
(a) for the search of any place in which he has reason to believe, that any intoxicant still, utensil, implement, apparatus or materials which are used for the commission of such off_ence .or in respect of which such has been, is being, or fo likely to be, committed, are kept or concealed, and
p. 1132, margin B
(b) for the arrest of any person whom he has reason to believe to have been, to be, or to be lJkely to be engaged in the commission of any such offence."
p. 1132, margin C
Thus this section relates to a contingency where the Statute enjoins that any inspector before searching a place must obtain a warrant from the magistrate. Section 54 is a special provision which arises in urgent cases where it may not be; possible for the officer concerned to get warrant from the Magistrate. Section 54 runs thus :
p. 1132, margin D
"Whenever the Excise Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner or any police officer not below the rank of an officer incharge of a police station or any Excise pfficer not below such rank as may be prescribed has reason to believe that an offence under section 32, section 33, section 34, section 36, or section 37 has been, is being, or is likely to be committed, and that a search wq_rrant cannot be obtained without affording the offender an opportunity of escape or of concealing evidence of the offence;, he may after recording the grounds of his belief- (a) at any time by day or by night enter and search any place and seize anything found therein which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this
p. 1132, margin A
Act; and (b) detain aud search and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person found in such place whom he has reason to be-
p. 1132, margin G
lieve to be guilty of such offence as aforesaid."
p. 1132, margin E
In the instant case, it is admitted that the inspector who searched the car of the appellant had net made any record of any ground on the basis <Jf which he had a reasonable belief that an offence under the Act, was being committed before proceeding to search the car and thus the provisions of section 54 were not at all compiled with.·
pp. 1132–1133, margin E
This, therefore, renders the entire search without jurisdiction and as a logical corollary, vitiates the conviction. We feel that both sections 53 and 54 contain valuable safeguards for the liberty of the citizen in cirder to protect them from ill-founded or frivolous prosecution or harassment. The point was taken before the High Court which appears to have brushed aside this legal lacuna without making any real attempt to analyse the effect of the provisions of section 53 and 54. The Hi~h Court obl;erved that these two sections were wholly irrelavant. With due respect, we are unable to approve of such a cryptic approach to a legal question which is of far reaching consequences. It was, however,. suggested that the word "place" would not include the car, but the defurition of the word "place" under the Act clearly includes vehicle which would include a car. Thus the ground on which the argument of . the petitioner bas been rejected by the High Court cannot be sustained by us. We are satisfied that there has been a direct non-compliance of the provisions of section 54 which renders the search completely without jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and.sentence pa'ssed on the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges framed against him. M.R. Appeal allowed .
p. 1133, margin A