Holding

A general search warrant under Section 93(1)(c) of the CrPC does not contravene Article 20(3) and is constitutionally valid.

Summary

The petitioners, office bearers of a charitable Sabha, challenged a search warrant issued under Section 93(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on the ground that it violated the constitutional protection against self‑incrimination under Article 20(3). The Supreme Court examined whether a general search of premises occupied by an accused, without compelling the accused to participate, amounts to compulsion prohibited by Article 20(3). It held that the immunity under Article 20(3) extends only to evidence that the accused is forced to produce, not to documents seized in a search where the accused is a passive spectator. The Court clarified the scope of Sections 91 and 93(1) of the CrPC, concluding that a warrant under 93(1)(c) is valid and does not infringe Article 20(3). Consequently, the High Court’s order sustaining the warrant was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a search warrant issued under Section 93(1)(c) of the CrPC violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Whether a summons under Section 91 can be served on an accused and if such summons would constitute compulsion.
Interpretation of the scope of Sections 93(1)(a), (b) and (c) in relation to the right against self‑incrimination.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 91, s. 93(1)(a), s. 93(1)(b), s. 93(1)(c)
Constitution of Indias. Article 20(3)
Income Tax Acts. 132A
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 139
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 34, s. 403, s. 409, s. 420, s. 477A

Subjects

search warrantself‑incriminationArticle 20(3)Criminal Procedure Codegeneral searchconstitutional lawevidencesummons

Judgment

673

V. S. KUTIAN PILLAI A

v.
RAMAKRISHNAN & ANR.
September 18, 1979
A. DESAI AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.]
• [D. 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 .
t •
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.
p
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
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'

11
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] l s.c.R.

A 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
B 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-
•1
c 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
D
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 of a general charitable nature. An earlier search warrant was quashed
by the High Court. When the complainant made more serious allegation!
a search warrant wM issued to conduct a search of the institution. The office
premises, the books and other documents of the Sabha could not be said to
be in possession of any individual accused. Tuey were in the possession o1
the institution. A search of such a public place under the authority of a
p-eneral search \Varrant can easily be sustained under s. 93(1) (c). Viewed
f' this way there was no illegality in the Magistrate's order. ·

Shyamlal Molwn/al v. State of Gujarat. [1965] 2 SCR 457, M. P. Sharma
& Others v. Satis!t Chandra District Magistrate, Delhi & Ors., [1954] SCR
1077, The State of Bombay v. Kathi Kohr Gohad & Ors .• [1962] 3 SCR 10,
explained.
•
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 178
of 1979.

Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and Order dated
16-3-1978 of the Kerala High Conrt in Cr!. M.P. No. 124/77.

II T. C. Raghavan and N. Sudhakara11 for th~ Appellant.

Nemo for the Respondent.
V. s. KUTTAN PILLAI V. RAMAKRISHNAN & ANR. (Desai, J.) 67 5

The Judgment of !He Court was delivered by A
I
DESAI, J.-Nemo tenetu prodere-no man is bound to accuse
himself-which finds constitutional recognition in Article 20(3) of
the Constitution, conferring immunity from compelljng an accused
person to be a w:tness against himself by giving self-incriminating
evidence, has been put into forefront to support a prayer for quashing B
the search warrant issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, AJwaye,
on 4th January 1977 directing the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Alwaye, to search the premises stykd as the Office of H.M.D.P.
Sabha ('Sabha' for short), Moothakunam, and to seize the books,
• <locuments and papers as set out in the application for issuance of
• search warrant. The Magistrate had before him a complaint filed by c
the first respondent Ramakrishnan against the petitioner and 5 others
for having committed offences under sections 403, 409, 420 and
•; 4 77 A read with s. 34, Indian Penal Code. Original accused 1, and
accused 2 the present petitioner, were respectively President and
Secretary of the Sabha and original accused 3 to 6 were described as
D
Managers of the Institution. The complainant made an application
on 4th January 1977 requesting the learned Magistrate to issue a
search warrant to search the office premises of the .Sabha and seize
die books, documents, etc. described in the application, if found
therein. On the vhy day the Magistrate .jssued a search warrant and
in fact it was executed and certain books, vouchers and papers were E
produced before the Court. The present petitioner ( originai accused
2) requested the learned Magistrate to recall the warrant and to
return the books and documents seized under the authority of the
search warrant. The learned Magistrate was of the opinion that in
view of the decision of this Court in Shyamlal Mohanlal v. State of
Gujarat('), and an earlier decision of V. Khalid, J. of Kerala High F
Court, no search warrant could be issued under s. 91 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('new Code' for short), and accordingly
directed that anything recovered pursuant to the search warrant issued
by him be returned to the person from whom the same were recovered.
The order was, however, to take effect after the decision on the requi-
sition which was by then received from the Income-Tax Officer under G
.. s. 132A of the Income Tax Act. First respondent (original com-
plainant) preferred a revision application to the High Court of Kerala
questioning the correctness of the decision of the learned Magistrate
and the claim to constitutional immunity of the accused from search
and seizure of books, documents, etc. directed with a view to collect-
ing ·evidence against him, being violative of Art. 20(3) of the Cons- H
(1) [196512 S. C.R. 457. •
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 1 S.C.R..

A titution was canvassed before the Court. The High Court after an
exhaustive review of the decisions of this Co11rt as well as those bear-
ing on the Fifth Amendment to the American Constitution held that
the provisions relating to search contained in s. 93 ( 1) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, are not hit by Article 20(3) of the Constituc
tion.
B
Section 91 confers power on the Court or an officer in charge of a.
police station to issue a summons or written order as the case may be,
,
to any person in whose possession or power a document, the produc-
tion of which the Court or the officer considers necessary or desirabls
for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding
c •
under the Code. Section 93 confers power on the Court to issue·
search warrant nnder three different situations. •
Sections 91 and 93, so far as they are relevant, read as.
under :
"91. (1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge
D of a police station considers that the production of any
document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the
purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other pro-
ceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer,
such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written
order, to the person in whose possession or power such
E document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend
and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stat-
ed in the summons or order."
"93. (1) (a) Where any Court has reason to believe ·that
a person to whom a summons or order under section 91
p or a requisition under sub-section (1) of section 92 has
been, or might, be, addressed, will not or would not pro-
. duce the document or thing as required by such summons
or requisition, or
(b) where such document or thing is not known to the
Court to be in the possession of any person, or
•G (c) where the Court considers that the purposes of any.,
inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code will l}ej •
served by a general search or inspection, it may'
issue a search-warrant; and the person to whom such
warrant is directed, may search or inspect in accordance
B therewith and the provisions hereinafter contained".
In exercise of the power conferred by s. 91 a summons can be-
lssued by the Court to a person in whose possession or power any·
v. s. KUTTAN PILLAI v. RAMAKRISHNAN & ANR. (Desai, J.) 677

document or other thing considered necessary or desirable for the A
purpose of iiny investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under
the Code calling upon him to produce the document or thing at the
time and place to be mentioned in the summons. On the advent
i of the Constitution, and especially in view of the provision contain-
ed in Art. 20(3), Courts were faced with a problem whether the
B
person referred to in s. 91 (1) of the Code ( s. 94 of old Code) would
include an accused. In other words, the question was whether a
summons can be addressed to the accused calling upon him to pro-.
duce 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. c
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 enact-
ed in Article 20(3). In M. P. Sharma & Others. v. Salish Chandra,
District Magistrate, l)elhi & Ors.,( 1 ~ the contention put forth was D
that a search to obtain document for investigation into an offence
is a Compulsory procuring of incriminatory evidence from the accus-
ild himself and is, therefore, hit by Art. 20(3) as unconstitutional
and illegal. A specific reference was made to ss. 94 and 96 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ('old Code' for short), both of
which are re-enacted in almost identical language as ss. 91 and 93 E
in the new Code, in. support of the submission that a seizure of
documents on search is in the contemplation of law a compelled
production of documents. A Constitution Bench of 8 judges of this
Court unanimously negatived this contention observing :

"A power of search and seizure is in any system of
. jurisprudence an overriding power of the State for the pr<;i-
tection 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 pri- G
vacy, 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 protec-
tion under Article 20(3) would be defeated by the statutory
provisions for searches''. B

(I) [1954] S. C.R. 1077.
.7-6250Cl(l9
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980) 1 S.C.R.

A 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 ~ues
tion whether there is any element of compulsion in issuing a summons
to a person accused of an offence under s. 94 (old) s. 91 ('lew) to
produce a document or thing in his posses~ion or power considered
B 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 l'ersori accused of an offence was left open .
. Following the decision in M. P. Shanna's case, a Division Bench
of the Madras High Court in Swarnalingam Chettiar v. Assistant
c Labour Inspector, Karaikudi(I), held that a summons could not be •• t
issued under s. 94 of the old Code to the accused for production of
certain documents in his possession irrespective of the fact whether
those: docnments contained some statement of the accused made of ·
his personal knowledge and accordingly the summons issueq to the
accused to produce certain documents was quashed. After the matter
D went back to the trial court, on an application of the Sub-Inspector
investigating the case, for a search warrant to be issued to· obtain
documents mentioned in the list attached. to the petition and likely
to be.found ul'on a search of the premises of Karaikudi Railway Out
Agency, the Magistrate issued a notice to the accused to show cause
E why a general search warrant as asked for should not be issued.
Again the accused moved the High Court in revision and in Swarna-
lingam Chettiar v. Assistant Inspector of Labour, Karaikuif.i(') the High
Court quashed the notice holding that such notice practically amounts
to stating that either he produces the document or else the premises
will be searched and this will amount to testimonial compulsion held
F impermissible by the decision of the Supreme Court in M. P. Sharma's
case (supra). This view of the Mad1as High Court is no more good
law in view of the later decisions of \bis Court.
In The State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oglwd & Ors.,( 3 ) a ques-
tion ·arose whether obtaining specimen hand writing or thumb
impression of the accused would contravene the constitutional
G guarantee jn Art. 20(3). In this case there was some controversy
about certaiu observations in M. P. Shmma's case (supra) and, there-
fore, the matter was heard by a Bench of 11 Judges. Two opinions
were handed down, one by Chief Justi,e Sinha for himself and
7 brother judges, and another by Das Gupta, J. for himself and
2· other colleagues. In Sinha, CJ's opinion, the observation in M. P.
0
(!) A.I. R. 1956 Madras 165.
(2) A. I. R. 1955 M'·dm 716.
(3) [1962] 3 S. C.R. 10.
• v. s. KUTTAN PILLAI v. RAMAKRISHNAN & ANR. (Desai, J.) 679
•
1 Shanna's case (supra) that s. 139 of the Evidertce Act has no bearing A
\.,_,~- >

on the connotation of the word 'witness' is not entirely well-founded
in law. Immunity from self-incrimination as re-enacted in Art.
20 ( 3) was held to mean conveying information based upon the
personal knowledge of the person giving the information and could
not include merely the mechanical process of producing documents in
• court which may throw a light on any of the points in controversy, B
. but wl1ich do not contain any statement of the accused based on
"'-) his personal knowledge. It was concluded that to be a witness is
, not equivalent to furnishing evidence in its wid~ significance; that
.,Js to say, as including not merely making of oral or written statement
1 but also production of document or giving materials which may be
relevant at trial to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused.
c
What was kept open in Sharma's case (supra) whether ._ person
accused of an offence could be served with a summons to produce
documents was decided when it was observed that immunity from
>< ~elf-incrimination would not comprehend the mechanical process of
producing documents in court which may throw a light on any of the D
points in controversy but which do not contain a statement of the
accused based on his personal knowledge.
The matter again came up before a Constitution Bene!< of this
Court in Sh yam/al Mohan/al v. State of Gujarat('). In that case
""" appellant Shyamlal Mohanlal was a licensed money-lender and accord- E
ing to the provisions of the relevant Money Lending Act and Rules
he was under an obligation to maintain books. He was prosecuted
for failing to maintain books in accordance with the provisions of the
. Act and the Rules. The police prosecutor incharge of the case on
· behalf of the prosecution presented an application requesting the
Court to order the appellant Sbyamlal Mobanlal to produce daily F
book and ledger for a certain year. Presumably it was a request
to issue summons as contemplated by s. 94 of the old Code. The
·°'learned Magistrate rejected the request on the ground that in so doing
,.--,. the guarantee of immunity from self-incrimination wonld be violated.
The matter ultimately came to this court and the question that was
G
" put in forefront before the Court was whether the expression · 'person'
~ in s. 94(1) which is the same as s. 91 (l) of the new Code, compre-
hends within its sweep a person accused of an offence and if it does,
whether an issue of summons to produce a document in his posses-
!... sion or power would violate the immunity against self-incrimination
.-guaranteed by Article 20(3). The majority opinion banded down H
by Sikri, J. ruled that s. 94(1) upon its true construction <lees not
(I) (1965] 2 S. C1 R. 457.
68,0 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R,

I A apply to an accused person. While recording this opinion there is no -<W= ... ~

reference to the decision of the larger Bench in Kathi Kalu Oghad'~
case (supra). Shah, J. in1 his dissenting judgment referred to the
observation that the accused may have documentary evidence in bis
possession which may throw some light on the controversy and if it
B is a document which is not his statement conveying bis personal
knowledge relating to the charge against him, he may be called upon ~
to produce it Proceeding further it was observed that Art. 20(3)
would be no bar to the summons being issued to a person accused of
an offence to produc!la thing or document except in the circumstanc-
es herein above mentioned. W.hatever that may be, it is indisputable •
C that accotding to the majority opinion the expression 'person' in ) ,
s. 91(1) (new Code) does not take within its sweep a person accused
of an offence which would mean that a summons issued to an accus-
ed person to produce a thing or document considered necessary or
desirable for the purpose of an investigation, inquiry or trial would
imply compulsion and the document or thing so produced would be '>t,
D compelled testimony and would be violative of the constitutional im-
munity against self-incrimination.
There appears to be Stlll11e conflict between the observations in
M. P., Sharma's case (supra) as reconsidered in Kothi Kala Oglui:d's
case (supra) and the one in the case of Shyamlal Mohanlal (supra).
E However, as this case is not directly relatable to a summons issued
under s. 91(1), we do not consider it necessary to refer the matter rr·
to a larger Bench to resolve the conflict.
In view of the decision in Shyamlal Mohanlal's case (supra) one
must proceed on the basis that a summons to produce a thing or docu-
ment as contemplated by s. 91 (1) cannot be issued to a person
I' accused of an offence calling upon him to produce document or
thing considered necessary or desirable for the purpose of an investi-
gation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code of Criminal ,_
Procedure. ,
~
If summons :is hereinbefore discussed cannot be. issued to an
G accused person under s. 91 (1), ipso facto a search warrant contem- ,.
plated by s. 93 (1 )(a) cannot be issued by the Court for the obvious
reason that it can only be issued where the Court could have issued a ~
summons but would not issue the same under the apprehension thai
the person to whom such summons js issued will not or would not
produce the thing as required by such summons or requisition. A ..J..
H search warrant under s. 93(1) (a) could only be iSsued where ~.
a summons could have been issued under s. 91 (1) but the same
would not be issued on an apprehension that the pen;on] to whom·
v. s. KUTTAN PILLAI v. RAMAKRISHNAN & ANR. (Desai,!.) 681

the summons is directed would not comply with the same and, there- A
fore, in order to obtain lhe document or thing to produce which the
summons was to be issued, a search warrant may be issued under
s. 93(1)(a).
Section 93, however, also envisages situations other than one
"' contemplated by s. 93(1) (a) for issuance of a search warrant. It B
must be made distinctly clear that the present search warrant is not
issued under s. 93(1) (a).
Section 93 ( 1) (b) comprehends a situation where a search warrant
may be issued to procure a document or thing not known to the
Court to be in the possession of any person. In other words, a C
general search warrant may be issued to procure the document or
thing and it can be recovered from any ~rson who may be ultimately
found in possession of it and it was not known to the Court that the
person from whose possession it was found was in possession of it.
In the present case the search warrant was to be executed at the '
office of the Sabha and it can be said that office bearers of the Sabha D
were the persons who were in possession of the documents in respect
of which the search warrant was issued. Therefore, clause (b) of
s. 93 (1) would not be attracted.
Section 93(1)(c) of the new Code comprehends a situation where
the Court may issue a search warrant when it considers . that the E
purpose of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code will
be served by a general search or inspection to search, seize and
produce the documents mentioned in the list. When such a general
search warrant is issued, in execution of it the premises even in
possession of the accused can be searched and documents found
F
therein can be seized irrespective of the fact that the documents may
contain some statement made by the accused upon his personal
knowledge and which when proved may have the tendency to incri-
minate the accused. However, such a search and seizure pursuant
to a search warrant issued under s. 93 (1 )( c) will not have even the
remotest tendency to compel the accused to incriminate himself. He G
is expected to do nothing. He is not required to participate in the
search. He may remain a passive spectator. He may even remain
absent. Search can be conducted under the authority of such warrant
in the presence of the accused. Merely because he is occupying the
premises which is to be searched under the authority of the search
warrant it cannot even remotely be said that by such search and H
consequent seizure of documents including the documents which may
contain statements attributable to the personal knowledge of the
682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980) 1 S.C.R.

A accused and which may have tendency to incriminate him, would ·-"\-
violate the constitutional guarantee agajnst self-incrimination because
he is not compelled to do anything. A passive submission to search
cannot be styled as a compulsion on the accusqd to submit to searth
and if 'anything is recovered during search which may provide incri-
minating evidence against the accused it cannot be styled as compell- .,
B ed testimony. This is too obvious to need any precedent in support.
The immunity against self-crimination extends to any incriminating J~
evidence which the accused may be compelled to give. It does not •
extend to cover such situation as where evidence which may have
tendency to incriminate the accused is being collected without in any • ~
C manner compelling him or asking him to be a party to the collection
of the evidence. Search of the premises occupied by the accused
without the accused being compelled to be a party to such, search
would not be violative of the constitutional guarantee enshrined in
Article 20(3).

D It was, however, urged that s. 93(1)(c) must be read in. the
context of s. 93 ( 1)(b) and it would mean that where documents are
known to be at a certain place and in possession of a certain person
any general search warrant as contemplated bys. 93(1) (c) will have
to be ruled out because in such a situation s. 93(1) (a) alone would
be 1lttracted. Section 93(1) (b) comprehends a situation where the
E Court issues a search warrant in respect of a document or a thing
to be recovered from a certain place but it is not known to the Court
whether that document or thing is in possession of any particular
person. Under clause (b) there is a definite allegation to recover
certain document or thing from a certain specific place but the Court
is unaware of the fact whether that document or thiug or the place is
F in possession of a particular person. 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 docu-
. ments may be found and that a general search is necessary. One
cannot, therefore, cut down the power of the Courfunder s. 93(1) (c)
G by importing into it some of the requirements of s. 93(1) (b). No
.
canon of construction would permit such an erosion of power of
the Court to issue a general search warrant. It also comprehends
not merely a genera] search but even an inspection meaning thereby
inspection of a place and a general search thereof and seizure of
documents or things which the Court considers necessary or desirable
B for the purpose of an investigation,. inquiry, trial or other proceeding
under the Code. The High Court accordingly sustained the general
search warrant in this case under s.93(1)(c).
V. s. KUTTAN PILLAI v. RAMAKRISHNAN & ANR. (Desai, J.) 683'

Turning to the facts of this case it was contended that the order A
of the Magistrate clearly disclosed an utter non-application of mind
and a mere mechanical disposal of the application befcire the Court.
Undoubtedly the order is of a laconic nature. But then there are
certain aspects of the case which cannot be overlooked before this
• Court would interfere in such mi interlocutory order.
B
The appellant and his co-accused are office bearers of a public
institution styled as H.M.D.P. Sabha. We were informed at the
hearing of this petition that this Sabha is a public institution engaged
,, in the activit)" of running educational institutions and supporting
objects or activities of a· general ·charitable nature. When the c
first complaint was filed, the allegation therein was that criminal
breach of trust in respect of funds of the public institution has been
committed by the office bearers thereof. A search warrant was issu-
ed but it was quashed by the Kerala High Court. Thereafter an-
other complaint was filed makin~ some more serious allegations and
a search warrant was sought. Now, this search warrant was being D
issued to conduct search of the premises used as office of an institu-
tion. The place will be in possession of the institution. The office
bearers of the Sabha are accused of an offence. Documents and
books of accounts of the institution are required for the purpose' of
the trial against the office bearers of the institution. The office pre-
mises could not be said to be in possession of any individual accused E
but stricto sensu it would be in possession of the institution. Books
of accounts and other documents of tlie institution could not be said
to be in personal custody or possession of the office bearers of the
institution but they are in possession of the institution and are lying
in the office of the institution. A search of such a public place nuder
the authority of a general search warrant can easily · be sustained F
under s. 93(1)(c). If the order of the learned Magistrate is cons-
trued to mean this, there is no illegality committed in issuing a search
. warrant. Of course, issuance of a search warrant is a serious matter
and it would 'be advisable not to dispose of an application for search
warrant in a mechanical way by a laconic order. Issue of search G
warrant being in the discretion of the Magistrate it would be reason-
able to expect of the Magistrate to give reasons which swayed his
discretion in favour of granting the request. A clear application of
mind by the learned Magistrate must be discernible in the order
granting the search warrant. Having said this, we see no justifica-
tion for interfering with the order of the High Court in this case. H
P.B.R. Appeal dismissed.