Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 37

272. Section 103 and search of the person.-

A suggestion1 to extend section 103 to search of the person was considered by us. But we could not accept it. Search of the person had usually to be made immediately on arrest, and ordinarily there would be no time to call witnesses.

1. F. 3(2)/55-L.C., Pt. I, S. No. 28.

273. Section 103 and list of respectable persons.-

The following suggestion1 has been made by a Bar Council:

"The Bar Council feels that for every village a list of respectable persons, known as Justices of the Peace or some other suitable and dignified name, may be prepared. Such an honorary office may attract respectable men. The power to search may be vested in the Justice of the Peace and the right of drafting the panchnama should be invested in him."

The comment of the State Government concerned on this suggestion is, that creating a sort of "cadre of search witnesses" etc. will create more problems than it will solve. The State Government was not in favour of this proposal, as it would lead to abuses and bring the entire system into disrepute.

We agree with the State Government's comment. No change is required.

1. F. No. 3(2)/55-L.C., Pt. III, S. No. 52.

274. Section 103 and suggestion of U.P. Committee.-

We may note the suggestion1 that search witnesses should be respectable persons but not necessarily the inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated.

We have already stated,2 that we are not in favour of any amendment of section 103 to that effect.

1. F. 3(2)/55-L.C., Pt. VII, S. No. 449, Suggestion of the U.P. Committee for Investigation of causes of Corruption in Subordinate Courts in Uttar Pradesh (1963), Report, p. 41, Bill, p. 225, middle.

2. See discussion regarding section 103.

275. Section 103(3).-

A suggestion1 to allow the search list under section 103(3) to be given afterwards, was considered, but rejected by us. The present provision is intended to safeguard the right of the occupant, and is a salutary one.

1. F. 3(2)/55-L.C., Pt. I, S. No. 17.

276. Section 104.- No change is required in section 104.

277. Section 105.- No change is required in section 105.

278. Section 105A.- No change is required in section 105A.

279. Section 106.- In section 106, the following points have been considered in relation to separation:

(a) Mention of the following Magistrates may be added-Chief Judicial Magistrates.

(b) Before the word "Magistrate", the word "Judicial" need not be added, as in Presidency towns, the prefix "Judicial" is not used.

280. Section 106 and the offences covered.-

Case-law1 as to the applicability of section 106 to cases of conviction under section 149, Indian Penal Code has been considered by us, and the history of the 1923 Amendment (as a consequence of which a controversy has arisen) also gone into. An amendment is proposed to settle the law on this point.

As section 106 stands at present, security cannot be required on conviction for abetment of criminal intimidation. An amendment is proposed to set this right.

1. Contrast-

Ramjan v. Jawaluddin, AIR 1944 All 272. with

Mekrai (in re:), AIR 1939 Mad 787.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Sections 1-176) Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys