Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 230 (JHR)

Manoj Kumar Jha v. State of Jharkhand

2015-02-11

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the first information report pertaining to Rajnagar P.S. Case No. 12 of 2014 dated 10.03.2014 instituted under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner and other employees of Kolhan Inter College, Chaliyama Dam, Rajnagar, Seraikella (hereinafter referred as 'the College'). 2. It appears that on 08.03.2014 at about 3:30 pm, informant, who is District Education Officer, Seraikella received a telephonic message from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Seraikella to reach immediately in the College. Accordingly informant reached in the College and found that a team of officers consisting of Ravi Shankar Bhuwala – I.A.S. (Trainee), Sri Shashi Prakash – D.S.P. (Trainee), Block Development Officer, Sadar, Chaibasa, P.S.I. Laxmi Kumar (A.S.I.), A.R. Khan – A.S.I. Sadar P.S., Chandra Bhusan Singh, Sub Divisional Officer, Seraikella, were inspecting some documents available in the College. Thereafter, on the direction of Sub-Divisional Officer, informant seized various documents mentioned in the F.I.R. It is also alleged that informant received information from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Seraikella that petitioner indulged in issuance of forged certificate to different students, who were not the regular students of the College. Accordingly, the present first information report lodged. 3. It is submitted by Sri Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner that informant, who is a District Education Officer has no power to make search and seizure in the College premises as per Section 94 of the Cr. P.C. Thus, the first information report lodged on the basis of aforesaid seizure is wholly illegal. Learned counsel relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Roy V.D. vs. State of Kerala, (2000) 8 SCC 590 . 4. Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case. As noticed above, in the instant case, the search was made by a team of officers including the Sub-Divisional Officer, Seraikella and it reveals from the first information report that on the direction of Sub-Divisional Officer, Seraikella, informant seized various documents, mentioned in the first information report. Thus, I find that in fact the seizure was made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, who along with other officers after receiving allegation against the petitioner conducted search in the College. Informant acted only on the direction of Sub-Divisional Officer, Seraikella. 5. Section 94 of the Cr. P.C. read as under:- 94. Thus, I find that in fact the seizure was made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, who along with other officers after receiving allegation against the petitioner conducted search in the College. Informant acted only on the direction of Sub-Divisional Officer, Seraikella. 5. Section 94 of the Cr. P.C. read as under:- 94. Search of place suspected to contain stolen property, forged documents, etc. - (1) If a District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class, upon information and after such inquiry as he thinks necessary, has reason to believe that any place is used for the deposit or sale of stolen property, or for the deposit, sale or production of any objectionable article to which this section applies, or that only such objectionable article is deposited in any place, he may by warrant authorise any police officer above the rank of a constable:- (a) To enter, with such assistance as may be required, such place. (b) To search the same in the manner specified in the warrant. (c) To take possession of any property or article therein found which he reasonably suspects to be stolen property or objectionable article to which this section applies. (d) To convey such property or article Magistrate, or to guard the same on the spot offender is taken before a Magistrate, or otherwise to dispose of it in some place of safety. (e) To take into custody and carry before a Magistrate every person found in such place who appears to have been privy to the deposit, sale or production of any such property or article knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect it to be stolen property or, as the case may be, objectionable article to which this section applies. (2) The objectionable articles to which this section applies are:- (a) Counterfeit coin. (b) Pieces of metal in contravention of the Metal Tokens Act, 1889 (1 of 1889), or brought into India in contravention of any notification for the time being in force under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962). (c) Counterfeit currency note; counterfeit stamps. (d) Forged documents. (e) False seals. (f) Obscene objects referred to in section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). (g) Instruments or materials used for the production of any of the articles mentioned in clauses (a) to (f). 6. (c) Counterfeit currency note; counterfeit stamps. (d) Forged documents. (e) False seals. (f) Obscene objects referred to in section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). (g) Instruments or materials used for the production of any of the articles mentioned in clauses (a) to (f). 6. From plain reading of aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has power to enter in any place and carry out search or may authorize other police officer to do so if he received information that a forged document kept there. 7. In the instant case, as noticed above, Sub-Divisional Officer, Seraikella is also a party to the search team and informant has seized the documents lying in the college on the direction of Sub-Divisional Officer. Thus, I find no illegality in the aforesaid seizure. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case, because in that case, the seizure has been made by an officer, who is not authorized to make search under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this case. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.