Search Warrant

2020 YLR 736 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 497 & 96BailRecoverySearch warrantScopeArrest of accused person is not necessary for the purpose of recovery

Investigating officer can obtain a search warrant for that purpose.

2012 PCrLJ 1973 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Ss. 497(2), 100 & 103West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13-AIllegal business of armsBail, grant ofFurther inquirySearch warrant

Search warrants under S.100, Cr.P.C. could be issued for the recovery of person, who was reported to be detained illegally

Search in the present case was made after four days of the issuance of the warrants

No plausible explanation had been brought on the record as to why there was such delay which had made the case of accused that of further inquiry

While making the alleged recovery, no independent witness was associated, whereas the requirement of S.103, Cr.P.C., was that the presence of two respectables was necessary

Authenticity of the warrants, and the recovery memo had to be seen at the trial stage after recording the evidence, which was the job of the Trial Court

Element of mala fide on the part of prosecution, could not be ruled out

Prima facie story of the prosecution seemed to be doubtful

If an element of doubt was there, that could be extended to accused even at bail stage

Case of accused, clearly fell within the ambit of S.497(2), Cr.P.C. for which sufficient grounds were available for further inquiry into the guilt of accused

Punishment for the offence with which accused was charged was seven years which did not fall under the prohibitory clause of S.497 Cr.P.C.

Investigation against accused had been completed and challan had already been submitted in the court; and the trial was not in sight in near future

Accused was no more required for further investigation

Keeping accused behind the bars for an indefinite period would amount to punish accused without trial

Accused was languishing in the jail since 2011

Bail could not be withheld as a punishment

Accused was released on bail, in circumstances.

2010 PCrLJ 231 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 10(2)-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.96Appreciation of evidenceSearch warrantApplication for

On receiving spy information with regard to running a brothel house by accused, complainant/Police Officer moved application to Illaqa Magistrate for issuance of search warrant

In said application neither the house required to be searched was identified nor was the informer produced before the Magistrate

On said application Magistrate passed order for, search warrant, but said order did not bear the seal of the court and search warrant was not issued in the prescribed form fulfilling the necessary conditions

Short order of the Magistrate did not show that there was material of any sort before him to make him believe that he must issue warrant

Magistrate did not realize that the issuance of a search warrant was a judicial act and the words `reason to believe' occurring in S.96, Cr.P.C., signified that there must be in existence justifiable grounds for the court to form that opinion which could be covered by the term "reason to believe "

As a consequence of the issuance of a search warrant, the Police Inspector raided the house without seeking permission and invaded the privacy of the house, guaranteed by the Constitution, without associating any respectable from the locality and started investigation without formally recording a crime report

Magistrate allowed application of Police Officer subject to the authenticity of the informer, which meant that Magistrate left it to the discretion of the Police Officer

Magistrate abjured his duty in favour of discretion of a Police Officer, which was certainly contrary to law

Investigation in the case, was defective

Main accused and his associates who, according to complainant/Police Officer, were controlling the brothel house had been acquitted as no evidence was on record to support their conviction

Alleged crime spot was reported to be in a village, but it was not possible to believe that the business of prostitution as recorded in F.I.R., was rampant and the neighbourhood in great agony, but none from the neighbourhood appeared either to witness a raid or to authenticate the element of recovery or to confirm the secret report the informer

Prosecution witness who was a journalist was a stock Police witness

Conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court against accused under S.10(2) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, could not be sustained, in circumstances.

2010 PCrLJ 231 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss.75 & 555Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.88 & 112Search warrant

No search warrant in the form set forth in the Fifth Schedule of Cr.P.C. as mandated by S.555, Cr.P.C., bearing the seal of the court as visualized by S.75 of Cr.P.C., was available on the record

Warrant was a public document and could have been proved by production of a certified copy as visualized by Art.88 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Only document on record, in the present case, was an application moved by the complainant requesting for issuance of a search warrant; which application was allowed by the Magistrate

Record failed to establish that a consequence of the order allowing the application conditionally, any search warrant, in accordance with the form prescribed in Schedule V of Cr.P.C. was issued directing the Police Inspector to perform a particular duty

No seal was affixed on the said application

Inference, however, could be drawn that the Police Officer wanted permission to effect arrest of a number of persons in a house where the offence was alleged being committed

General warrant to apprehend more than one person was, however neither authorized by Cr.P.C. nor by Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979

All proceedings as a subsequent to submission of application were thus, void under clause (d) of sub Article (i) of Art.112 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, the court was authorized to take judicial notice of "the seal of all the courts".

2002 MLD 700 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.162 [as amended by Federal Laws (Revision and Declaration) Ordinance (XXVII of 1981)]Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199Constitutional petitionSearch warrant

Illaqa Magistrate on application made by Customs Authority issued a search warrant under S.162 of the Act, for seizure of non-duty paid contraband goods lying in a store

Intelligence Officer (Customs) alongwith his staff members raided the store and seized the goods

Contention of petitioner was that power to issue warrant under S.162 of the Customs Act, 1969 vested only in Judicial Magistrate and not Illaqa Magistrate

Validity

Search warrant issued by Illaqa Magistrate was without any lawful authority and all proceedings and action taken thereupon and result followed therefrom were of no legal effect

High Court accepted Constitutional petition with direction to Authorities to restore the consignment seized by them through such process of search.

1958 PLD 241 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Search Warrant -Misuse of-May be rectified by recourse to Court which issued it and not by a writ petition-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 170. The misuse of a search warrant can be checked and rectified by the Court which issued it, and the same Court can examine what documents should be retained by the police, which of them should be returned. The aggrieved party could then approach the High Court by way of a revision petition.