CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CASE COMMENT

V.S Kuttan Pillai vs. Ramakrishnan, 1980 1 SCC 264

Introduction:

A search warrant shall not be issued for searching a document, parcel or any other item in
the custody of the authorities of the postal or telegraph service unless ordered by a respective
District Magistrate or a Chief Judicial Magistrate. A search warrant would also not be issued if it
affects Section 123 and Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 or the Bankers’ Book
Evidence Act of 1891. Search warrant is a written authority given to a police officer or any other
authority by a Magistrate or Court for conducting the search of a place either generally or for
specified items or documents or for persons who have been wrongfully detained. in the case
of V. S. Kuttan Pillai v. Ramakrishnan, wherein it was opined that a search of the premises
occupied by the accused does not amount to compulsion on him to give evidence against himself
and hence was not violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The paper will analyse
the case and proceeds with a comment on it.

Case and analysis:

The complainant made an application before a judge for the issue of a warrant for the
pursuit and seizure of specific books and records of a Sabha of which the accused were office-
carriers. After the seizure of the books and reports, on the use of one of the accused people, the
judge guided their re-visitation of the people from whom they were recuperated. In the
respondent correction request 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. The pinnacle court excused the appeal.
Momentarily, In exercise of the force gave by s. 91 a summons can be given by the Court to an
individual in whose possession or force any record or other thing thought about essential or
attractive with the end goal of any investigation, inquiry, preliminary or other continuing under
the Code calling upon him to deliver the archive or thing at that point and spot to be referenced
in the summons.
Remedies against a Search Warrant
1. Instituting a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing an illegal
search warrant and for return of the seized thing/document.
2. An order under Section 93 can be set aside under 401 of CrPC in revision if it can be
shown that the Magistrate had not applied its mind judicially. A search carried out in
contravention of law constitutes an actionable trespass and a suit for damages can be filed
against the person executing the illegal warrant.

On the coming of the Constitution, and particularly considering the provision contained
in Art. 20(3), Courts were confronted with an issue whether the individual alluded to in s. 91(1)
of the Code (s 94 of old Code) would incorporate an accused. In other words, the question was
whether a summons can be addressed to the accused calling upon him to produce any document
which may be in his possession or power and which is necessary or desirable for the purpose of
an investigation, inquiry, trial, etc. in which such person was an accused person. The wider
question that was raised soon after the enforcement of the Constitution was whether search of the
premises occupied or in possession of a person accused of an offence or seizure of anything
therefrom would violate the immunity from self-incrimination enacted in Article 20(3). "A
power of search and seizure is in any system of jurisprudence 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 regulation to constitutional limitations
by recognition of a fundamental right to privacy, analogous to the American Fourth Amendment,
we have no justification to import it, into a totally different fundamental right, by some process
of strained construction. Nor is it legitimate to assume that the constitutional protection
under Article 20(3) would be defeated by the statutory provisions for searches". It was concluded
that a search under the enabling provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be challenged
as illegal on the ground of violation of Article 20(3). It must be made clear that the question
whether there is any element of compulsion in issuing a summons to a person accused of an
offence under s. 94 (old) s. 91 (new) to produce a document or thing in his possession or power
considered n necessary or desirable for any inquiry, investigation or, trial under the Code of
Criminal Procedure was kept open. In other words, the question whether the expression 'person'
in s. 94 (old) s. 91 (new) would comprehend a person accused of an offence was left open.
 The analysis will lead to the agreeing state of the judgment in the case. The constitutional
validity of search warrant has been questioned. For instance, in the case of V. S. Kuttan Pillai v.
Ramakrishnan,  wherein it was opined that a search of the premises occupied by the accused does
not amount to compulsion on him to give evidence against himself and hence was not violative
of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. A search warrant can be issued in any of the
following situations according to Section 93.

1. In a case where a Court has a reason to believe that an individual summoned to produce
any item or document is unwilling to deliver it.
2. In a case where a document or an item is unknown to the Court to be in possession of an
individual.
3. In a case where a general inspection or a search is required to be conducted. However, a
search warrant may be in general or in restriction as it’s as to any place or a part thereof.

JAYAVARSHINI S
-BA0180019.