Musammat Gyaso vs State

Khan, J.—The facts leading to this revision are that the applicant applied to the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Gwalior, for issuing a search-warrant u/s 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code alleging that his daughter was sold by her husband for illicit purpose in Kailaras, District Morena, and that she was being wrongfully detained there. The learned Additional District Magistrate, rejected the application on the sole ground that Kailaras was not within his jurisdiction. Aggrieved by this order the applicant filed a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, but it was also dismissed. Now he has filed this revision.

The trial Court has not expressed any opinion as to whether having regard to the facts of the case a search-warrant should be issued or not ? He has merely dismissed the application on the preliminary ground that he has no jurisdiction. But I am afraid that in holding this, the learned trial Court did not bear in mind the provisions of Sections 82 and 83 read with Section 101 of the Criminal Procedure Code. By Section 101 of the Code, the provisions of Sections 82, 83 have been made applicable to all search-warrants issued u/s 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 82 says that a warrant of arrest may be executed at any place in India. On reading Sections 100, 101 & 82 Cr. P.C. together, the conclusion is irresistible that a search warrant can be executed at any place in India. I may as well refer to section 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which prescribes the manner in which such warrants are executed outside the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court issuing the warrants. I find support for this view in a decision reported in AIR 1954 TC 157 (State vs. Kochukochu Bhaskaran).

The learned Government Advocate has drawn my attention to a case reported in 1954 MBLJ, where it had been held by the Madhya Bharat High Court that the District Magistrate of Dewas had no jurisdiction to issue a warrant u/s 100 Cr. Procedure Code executable at Delhi. On a careful perusal of the Madhya Bharat Case, I find that the attention of the Court in that case was not drawn to Sections 101, 82 and 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code. If those sections had been considered, I feel confident that the conclusion would have been different.

For reasons stated above, the revision is allowed and the case is remitted to the trial Court for proceeding with it in the light of the observations made above.