minal Appeal No 159 of 1967
491 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 28 1967 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No 2195 of 1964
Anil Kumar Gupta R A Gupta and Uma Datta for the appellant
O P Rana for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah CJ
The appellants are five in number who were prosecuted originally with
11 others under diverse sections of the Indian Penal Code which included sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 333 and 353 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code
of the original 16 accused in the case 11 were acquitted in the Court cf Session
The High Court on appeal confirmed their convictions with some modifications and reduced the sentences passed on them
As a result of the High Court s judgment one of the appellants Gopi stands convicted under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code with a sentence of six months  rigorous imprisonment and under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code with a like sentence the two sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently
Others are convicted only under s147 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to imprisonment already undergone by them which we are told was in the neighbourhood of two weeks
They now appeal by special leave against their conviction and sentences
The facts of the case are as follows
In November 1963 a she buffalo belonging to one Rajbir of village Chhainsa police station Chhainsa in the district of Gurgaon then a part of Punjab and now a part of Haryana was stolen
Rajbir s suspicion was that the appellants Gopi and Munshi had stolen the buffalo and that they were keeping it in village Gunpara police station Dankaur in Bulandshahr district in Uttar Pradesh
There are certain allegations that Gopi and Munshi demanded a sum of Rs 200 for the return of the buffalo that the amount was paid but the buffalo was not returned
We are not concerned with the truth of this statement
A report of theft of buffalo was lodged at police station Chhainsa on November 26 1963
The report was sent to Sub Inspector Kesar Singh PW 1 who was then at another village and he proceeded in the company of three constables and some other villagers to Gunpara
From the village he took with him two other persons Rajey and Chander
The police party was armed with rifles
a revolver and lathis
They reached the house of Gopi and Munshi at about 11 30 pm and found them sleeping in front of their house
Gopi and Munshi were woken up by the police and were informed that the police party had come to search 492 for the buffalo
The prosecution case is that Gopi and Munshi thereupon raised a hue and cry that the police party had arrived and on that the appellants and some other persons violently attacked the police party causing simple injuries to Kesar Singh Mohan Singh and Sri Ram of the police force and grievous injury to Jodhra Ram
The injury to Jodhra Ram was caused with a farsa on the head and had fractured his skull
Later the police party when it was withdrawing was again waylaid and the allegation is that Kesar Singh was wrongfully confined at Naurangpur
He was then rescued by Mulaim Singh a constable of police station Dankaur and Kesar Singh then went to Gunpa a where he made a report to the police station officer Dankaur who had by that time returned
It may be mentioned that on behalf of the appellants a report was also lodged at police station Dankaur at 4 am on the night of the occurrence complaining that a dacoity was attempted to be committed at the house of Gopi and Munshi by some persons who were dressed in police uniform
Investigation then followed and the appellants with 11 others who have since been acquitted were prosecuted
The High Court considered whether the action of Kesar Singh in conducting the search outside the limits of his police station house was bona fide or under colour of office
It gave a finding that it was not bona fide because Kesar Singh could have easily asked the police station house officer of Dankaur to conduct the search under section 1661 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
His explanation that the police at Dankaur were mixed up with the appellants  party was considered a lame excuse
However the High Court felt that the action of the appellants was criminal because they knew that it was a police party
In this appeal the appellants had earlier undertaken to this Court that they would argue a pure point of law and that the record therefore need not be printed
As a result there is no evidence before us
All that we have is the copy of the judgment of the High Court and the special leave petition with the grounds on which this appeal is to be argued
The only question of law argued on behalf of the appellants is that the search was illegal and therefore the appellants had every right to resist it and further that they resisted the search party in the exercise of the right of private defence thinking that the raiding party were decoits dressed in police uniforms
As to the knowledge of the appellants about the identity of the raiding party we have had the evidence of the witnesses read to us
It is quite clear from that evidence that the sub inspector Kesar Singh had communicated to Gopi and Munshi that this was a raid by a police party who were out to search the premises for 493 the missing buffalo
Therefore the statement of the appellants that they took the raiding party to be dacoits is not true and we do not therefore believe it
The argument however was raised that under section 165 the powers of search of station house officer are limited to the limits of his police station and he cannot make a search within the jurisdiction of another police station house officer
Reliance was placed upon the provisions of section 165 to establish this
There is no doubt that that is the normal and ordinary provision of the Code but then there is section 166 also to be read
Under sub section 1 of that section a police officer may invoke the assistance of a police station house officer of another jurisdiction and ask him to conduct the search
It is submitted that this is what the sub inspector Kesar Singh ought to have done
The powers of the police station house officer however are not confined to this only because sub section
3 of the same section gives the right and authority to the police station house officer to conduct search in the jurisdiction of another police station house officer if he has reason to believe that delay would be occasioned by requiring the officer in charge of the other police station to cause the search to be made and as a result evidence of the commission of the offence would be concealed or destroyed
This is what the sub inspector Kesar Singh seems to have done
His explanation was that the police of Dankaur were mixed up with the accused who had stolen the buffalo and therefore he took it upon himself to conduct the search and recover the buffalo
The explanation in our opinion is believable because no police officer would ordinarily go into another jurisdiction unless there are compelling reasons to do so
A buffalo had been stolen a few weeks before and nothing had been done to recover it
In these circumstances the sub inspector Kesar Singh might well have believed that unless he took some instant action the buffalo would never be found
Therefore his action was with due care and attention and cannot be said to be mala fide
It was argued however that the sub section is limited to avoidance of delay and there was no case made out here that there was likelihood of delay it the police station house officer of Dankaur had been invited to conduct the search
In our opinion in the case of stolen cattle time is of the essence because once the animal is removed and mixed up with others it is very difficult to spot it in the big herds common in these places
Therefore if the police officer had reason to believe that the police officers at Dankaur would take their own time because they were mixed up with the accused party he had full jurisdiction in taking recourse to sub section
3 of section 166 and to carry out the search himself
It was contended before us that he ought to have recorded his reasons in writing as required by section 165 and also by section no question appears to have been put to the sub inspector to elicit from him whether the reasons were recorded or not
Regard being had to the regularity of official acts we are entitled to presume that the sub inspector must have taken the precaution to record his reasons
In any event we cannot hold this against the prosecution because there is no material on which we can proceed
We are therefore satisfied that the search in this case was bona fide and was conducted legally by Kesar Singh in another jurisdiction because be had reason to believe that evidence namely the buffalo was likely to be lost if he did not take prompt action
The accused were informed by him that it was the police party which had come and they had no reason to attack the police party either as dacoits or in self defence in any other form
The offence of the appellants is therefore amply brought home to them
We see no reason to interfere
The appeal fails and will be dismissed
GC Appeal dismissed


Summary:
On the basis of a First Information Report regarding loss of a buffalo lodged at police station Chhainsa the Sub Inspector of that police station sought to search the house of the appellants situated in the jurisdiction of police station Dankaur
The appellants and several others resisted the search and caused injuries to the police party for which they were prosecuted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code
The appellants along with certain others were convicted by the trial court and their appeals were disallowed by the High Court
By special leave they appealed to this Court contending  i that the officer of a police station cannot carry out a search in the jurisdiction of another police station without the permission of the Station House Officer of that station in the present case the reason given by the Sub Inspector for not taking such permission namely that the local police was in league with the appellants did not satisfy the terms of section 1663 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ii that the search was also illegal for the reason that the Sub Inspector before attempting the search did not record his reasons as required by sections 165  166 of the Code iii that being illegal the search was not bona fide iv that the appellants were entitled to the right of private defence since they thought that the raiding party were decoits dressed as policemen
HELD  i In the case of stolen cattle time is of the essence because once the animal is removed and mixed up with others it is very difficult to spot it in the big herds common in these places
Therefore if the police officer had reason to believe that the police officers at Dankaur would take their own time because they were mixed up with the accused party he had full jurisdiction in taking recourse to sub section
3 of section 166 and to carry out the search himself
493 G H ii No questions were put to the Sub Inspector to elicit from him whether the reasons for the search were recorded or not
Regard being had to the regularity of official acts it must be presumed that the Sub Inspector must have taken the precaution to record his reasons
494A iii In the circumstances of the case the search was legal and bonafide
494 B iv The accused were informed by the Sub Inspector that it was the police party which had come and they had no reason to attack the police party either as dacoits or in self defence in any other form
494 C