Blog Details

What's a search warrant? 

A search warrant is a written directive issued by a court or a magistrate to the police or another individual authorising the search of any location. This search could be performed on various items, documents, or people.

The court must have cause to think that the individual to whom a Section 91 summons has been issued will not deliver documents or items before it can issue a search warrant. For the court to reach this conclusion, there must be some basis for justification. The search warrant should be used very carefully and cautiously because it constitutes an invasion of privacy.

Conditions in which a search warrant is granted

The conditions under which a court may grant a search warrant are outlined in Sections 93 to 98 of the Code.

Section 93:

1. Search of a document or item required by the court for an investigation, trial, or other proceeding under the Code [Section 93]: Section 93 states that the court may issue a search warrant for a document or item required by the court for an investigation, trial, or other proceeding under the Code if:

(a) Even after being served with a summons under Sections 91 or 92, the person in possession of such a document or thing refuses to deliver it.

(b) when the court is unaware that the item or document is in anyone's possession.

(c) When the court determines that widespread inspection is the only method that will accomplish the goal,

Only the District Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate can issue a search warrant if the item being searched is being held by a postal or telegraph authority.

The first premise of patent ambiguity is explained in this section. Oral testimony may be used to clarify latent ambiguity under section 96 of the Act but may not be used to provide an explanation based on section 93. A document is ambiguous if it cannot be understood on its face and has flaws that cannot be fixed, according to the provisions of this section. When there is ambiguity in the contract, the language employed in the document, rather than by the parties based on outside information, might determine the issue. The laws of interpretation cannot be used to determine a clear meaning.

Section 94:

2. Search for stolen goods, forgeries, etc. [Section 94]: If a District Magistrate, Sub-divisional District Magistrate, or Magistrate of First Class has reason to believe that a location is being used for the sale or deposit of any stolen goods, or other objectionable items listed under Section 94 (2), he may authorise any police officer by way of a warrant to enter such location and conduct searches therein.

This section highlights the proper application of the facts at hand when the language employed in the text is straightforward and understandable. Nothing that contradicts the facts will be accepted as evidence. This clause therefore applies whenever any factual situation warrants consideration of the wording of the document under consideration by the court. As a result, this part does not address any uncertainty, whether it be latent or patent. It will only be applicable if the document is implemented and its maker can determine how that implementation was received.

Section 95:

3. Search any premises where such a book or document is reasonably suspected to be [Section 95]: If any matter contained in any newspaper or book or document is punishable under Section 124 A, Section 153A, Section 153B, or Section 292 or Section 293 or Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, and such matter is declared forfeited by the State Government, the Magistrate may issue a warrant authorising any police officer to search any premises where such a book or document is reasonably suspected. 

In the case of Anand Chintamani Diglie v. State of Maharashtra, the State government seized the book, "Mee Nathuram Godse Bolto ahe"(I am Nathuram Godse speaking) in all of its forms, including the Gujarati translation, pursuant to Section 95 on the grounds that its distribution would disturb public peace, foster discord or feelings of animosity, hatred, or ill-will among various groups or communities. However, the notification omitted the information that the State Government used to support its position. 

As a result, the Court determined that it did not comply with Section 95 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. A simple reference to Sections 153-A and 295-A of the I.P.C. in the notification was insufficient to protect it from the effects of invalidity. The confiscation of the book was unlawful because the state government had violated Section 95 by using its extralegal authority.

Section 97:

4. Search for people who have been wrongfully imprisoned [Section 97]: This section gives the District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate, and Magistrate of First Class the authority to issue search warrants if they have cause to believe that someone is imprisoned in such a way that their detention constitutes an offence.