HC Opines: Section 100(5) Cr.P.C. doesn't require Witnesses of search and seizure to attend court as Witness unless specially summoned by Court, Read Judgment

The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that Section 100(5) Cr.P.C. does not require the witnesses of search and seizure to attend the court as a witness unless specially summoned by the court.

Brief facts

The factual matrix of the case is that the informant stated that he received some confidential information that some miscreants were transporting catechu biscuits in a white ambassador car. Thereafter, the vehicle was intercepted and about 2.40 quintals of catechu biscuits were found loaded on it. Furthermore, both the trial court and the appellate court hold them guilty.

Contentions of the Appellant

The Appellant contended that both the lower court and the appellate court were wrongly convicted. It was also contended that the prosecution had failed to examine the seizure witness. Also, during the trial, neither the seized car nor the seized catechu biscuits were produced in court, and there was no chemical examination report available.

Observations of the court

The Hon’ble court observed that as per section 100(5) of the Cr.P.C. a list of everything seized during the search and the locations in which it was found must be prepared by the officer or another person and signed by the witnesses. No one who witnesses a search conducted under this section is required to appear in court unless specifically called upon by the court.

It was noted that the search and seizure were made before independent witnesses.

Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the trial court had rightly held them guilty of the offense under section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court. The court also set aside the order of sentence passed by the trial court considering that 28 years have elapsed since, the occurrence of the incident.

The decision of the court

With the above direction, the court partly allowed the criminal revision.

Case Title: Md. Reyazul Vs The State of Jharkhand

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath

Case No.: Cr. Revision No. 1282 of 2016

Advocate for the Petitioner: M/s. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate

Advocate for the Respondent: M/s. Ashish Jha, A.P.P.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com