M. P. SHARMA AND OTHERS versus SATISH CHANDRA, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DELHI, AND OTHERS

M. P. SHARMA AND OTHERS versus SATISH CHANDRA, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DELHI, AND OTHERS

Search and seizure under the first alternative of section 96(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code does not offend Article 19(1)(f) and does not amount to compelled production within the meaning of Article 20(3), hence is not unconstitutional.

Parties
Petitioner: M. P. Sharma and Others; Respondent: Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi, and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 March 1954
Procedural Posture
Original Jurisdiction Petition Under Article 32 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Applications dismissed without costs.
Legal Topics
Article 20(3) Protection Against Self Incrimination, Article 19(1)(f) Right to Property, Search and Seizure, Fundamental Rights
Constitutional Law Criminal Procedure Article 20(3) Protection Against Self Incrimination Article 19(1)(f) Right to Property Search and Seizure Fundamental Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. P. Sharma and Others

Petitioner

Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi, and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Original Jurisdiction Petition Under Article 32 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether search and seizure of documents under sections 94 and 96 of the Criminal Procedure Code violates Article 20(3) (protection against self-incrimination).
  2. 2 Whether search and seizure violates Article 19(1)(f) (right to property) of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

Search and seizure under the first alternative of section 96(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code does not offend Article 19(1)(f) and does not amount to compelled production within the meaning of Article 20(3), hence is not unconstitutional.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed without costs.