Chapter VII
Section 93 CrPC: When search-warrant may be issued
New Law Update (2024)
Section 99 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Magistrate's Court, Sessions Court
Punishment
Procedural – Warrant / Summons Process
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) (a) Where any Court has reason to believe that a person to whom a summons or order under section 91 or a requisition under sub-section (1) of section 92 has been, or might be, addressed, will not or would not produce the document or thing as required by such summons or requisition, or
(b) where such document or thing is not known to the Court to be in the possession of any person, or
(c) where the Court considers that the purposes of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code will be served by a general search or inspection,
it may issue a search-warrant; and the person to whom such warrant is directed, may search or inspect in accordance therewith and the provisions hereinafter contained.
(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, specify in the warrant the particular place or part thereof to which only the search or inspection shall extend; and the person charged with the execution of such warrant shall then search or inspect only the place or part so specified.
(3) Nothing contained in this section shall authorise any Magistrate other than a District Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate to grant a warrant to search for a document, parcel or other thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 93(1)
This crucial sub-section outlines the primary conditions under which a Court can issue a search warrant. It covers situations where a person summoned for documents is unlikely to produce them, or when the location of the required document or thing is unknown, or if a general search is necessary for any ongoing legal proceeding.
Section 93(3)
This sub-section imposes an important restriction, stating that only a District Magistrate or a Chief Judicial Magistrate has the authority to issue a search warrant for items held in the custody of postal or telegraph authorities, thereby ensuring a higher level of scrutiny for such sensitive searches.
Landmark Judgements
V.S. Kuttan Pillai v. Ramakrishnan (1980):
The Supreme Court clarified that a search warrant under Section 93(1)(c) CrPC could be issued for a general search even if the Court does not know the specific person in possession of the document or thing, provided it is satisfied that such a search is necessary for the inquiry, trial, or other proceedings. It affirmed that a prior summons under Section 91 is not a prerequisite if the conditions for a search warrant under Section 93 are otherwise met.
State of U.P. v. Ram Prakash (1980):
This Supreme Court ruling reiterated the principles laid down in Kuttan Pillai, emphasizing that the power to issue a search warrant under Section 93 is a serious one and must be exercised with due judicial application of mind. The Court underscored that a warrant should only be issued when other methods of securing documents or things are unlikely to be effective, or when the possessor is unknown, or when a general search is genuinely required to further the ends of justice in a proceeding.