RPF Officer Can Conduct House Search During 'Enquiry' Without Search Warrant As Per S. 165 CrPC: Jharkhand High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

28 Jan 2022 4:00 PM GMT

  • RPF Officer Can Conduct House Search During Enquiry Without Search Warrant As Per S. 165 CrPC: Jharkhand High Court

    The Jharkhand High Court has held that the officer of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) can also conduct a house search during an inquiry under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act without a search warrant under certain conditions as laid down under Section 165 of the CrPC.However, when such an officer is not enquiring into a case, he has to obtain the prior permission of...

    The Jharkhand High Court has held that the officer of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) can also conduct a house search during an inquiry under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act without a search warrant under certain conditions as laid down under Section 165 of the CrPC.

    However, when such an officer is not enquiring into a case, he has to obtain the prior permission of the Magistrate of the area as envisaged in Section 10 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, the Bench of Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary held.

    The case in brief 

    The petitioners were found in possession of certain railway properties (HPSV lamp fitting without lamp, PIJF telephone cable, Burnt copper wire, etc) and it was suspected that the articles were stolen by them.

    The said articles were recovered in a raid conducted by the officers and members of RPF Post alongwith the police force under the leadership of the In-charge, Police Inspector of the police station post with one independent witness.

    During the inquiry, the seized articles were found to be stolen property of the Railways, and accordingly, a prosecution report was submitted against the petitioners.

    The trial court convicted the petitioners (Yogendra Saw and Raju Saw) under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, and sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and the period undergone in jail custody was directed to be set off.

    This conviction was confirmed by Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, and thus, challenging the same, the Petitioners moved before the High Court with their revision petition.

    It was the primary argument of the petitioners that a necessary search warrant under Section 10 of the Railway Properties (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 was not taken, and accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

    Court's observations

    At the outset, the Court noted that the search in the instant case was conducted during the investigation after a theft report was already instituted and the raid was conducted by the RPF officers along with the officers of the local police station.

    Further, the Court observed that Section 8(2) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act had provided that the officer of the Railway Protection Force may exercise the same powers and shall be subject to the same provisions as the officer in charge of a police station may exercise and is subject to under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

    Against this backdrop, the Court observed thus:

    "Therefore, the officer of the force can also conduct a house search during an enquiry under the Act without a search warrant under certain conditions as laid down under Section 165 of the Cr. P.C...From the available materials in the present case, it is apparent that the search in the present case was conducted in course of an enquiry/investigation into a case and was preceded by a theft report also i.e. exhibit-8 and consequently, the question of obtaining any search warrant before conducting the search does not and cannot arise at all."

    However, the Court also clarified that an officer conducting an inquiry under Section 8 (1) of the Act does not possess all the attributes of an officer-in-charge of a Police station investigating a case under Chapter XIV of the Code and that he possesses but a part of those attributes limited to the purpose of holding the inquiry.

    Lastly, the Court concluded that at the time of the occurrence, both the petitioners were found in possession of the seized articles and that both the petitioners were found dealing with the recovered articles which were found to be railway property in course of inquiry and accordingly, the Court didn't find any illegality or perversity or material irregularity in the impugned judgments calling for any interference in revisional jurisdiction.

    Case title - Yogendra Saw and another v State of Jharkhand
    Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 10

    Click Here To Read/Download Order


    Next Story