G.C. Mathur, J. - (1.) This criminal revision has been referred to this Bench for decision at the instance of Gupta, J. The question, which arises for determination in this case, is whether the conviction of the Applicant Under Sec. 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 is vitiated on account of the fact that the search as a result of which the unlicensed arms were recovered, was not conducted, in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 165 Code of Criminal Procedure. Before Gupta, J., a decision of D.D. Seth, J. in Prayag Singh v/s. State Cr. Rev. No. 1961 of 1967 D/ - May 22, 1968 reported in, 1968 ACR 295 :, 1968 AWR 454, was cited but, finding himself unable to agree with this decision, he made this reference.
(2.) In Prayag Singh's case, the accused was a member of a P.A.C. Battalion. On a search of his barracks by the Company Commander, the Platoon Commander and a Head Constable, 55 rounds of live cartridges of 303 Bore Rifle and 8 chargerclips were recovered from his box. At the trial, the recovery of the cartridges and chargerclips was proved by the statements of the persons who conducted the search. The accused was convicted Under Sec. 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act by a magistrate and the conviction was upheld in appeal. In revision D.D. Seth, J. came to the conclusion that the Company Commander was not an officer authorised to make a search by Sec. 165 Code of Criminal Procedure and observed: It must therefore,, be held that Sri Sita Ram, the Company Commander, who carried out the search of the belongings of the Applicant, was not authorised by law to carry out that search and that being the position, the conviction of the Applicant Under Sec. 25(a), Arms Act, was illegal. He was apparently of the view that, if the search was not made in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 165 Code of Criminal Procedure, the conviction could not stand.
(3.) It is now well settled that any irregularity or illegality in the investigation of a case does not, by itself, vitiate the trial or the conviction. In Niranjan Singh v/s. State of UP : 1956 SCR 734 : AIR 1957 SC 412, the Supreme Court has observed: The Code of Criminal Procedure in laying down the omissions or irregularities which either vitiate the proceedings pr not does not anywhere specifically say that a mistake committed by a police officer during the course of the investigation can be said to be an illegality or irregularity. Investigation is certainly not an inquiry or trial before the court and the fact that there is no specific provision either way in Ch. XLV with respect to omissions or mistakes committed during the course of investigation; except with regard to the holding of an inquest is, in our opinion, a sufficient indication that the legislature did not contemplate any irregularity in investigation as of sufficient importance to vitiate or otherwise form any infirmity in the inquiry or trial. In this case, the Supreme Court approved the following observation of Adami, J. in Hafiz Mohammad Sani v/s. Emperor : AIR 1931 Pat 150: There can be no doubt that the Sub -Inspector in his procedure disobeyed certain provisions of the law and for that he could be punished, if the authorities deemed it fit, but I cannot find that his failure was to the prejudice of the Petitioners. Nor can I see how failure properly to conduct an investigation into an offence can vitiate a trial which was started on the final report after the investigation.;