According to the 1st respondent, for the purpose of the investigation of the said offence, it became necessary to carry out searches and seize documents and other Arti- cles from the office and factory premises of the said concerns at Connaught Place, New Delhi, and at Kalkaji New Delhi respectively.He, therefore, made a record in writing at 7.30 A. M. on 1-1-1968 under Section 165(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was filed as annexure 'A' by the petitioners and as Annexure R-2 by the respondents.It runs as under :--"Special Police Establishment Central Investigating Agency (1).Whereas I, B.A. Lakshminarayana Swamy, Dy.of Police, Special Police Establishment, Cia (1), Cbi, New Delhi, am investigating the case in R. C. 12/67-CIA(1) u/s 120B Ipc R/ W Section 420, Ipc and Section 5(2) of Act Ii of 1947, and Whereas, it has become necessary for purposes of my investigation in the said case to take possession of the following documents and things said to be in possession of M/s Lloyd Electric and Engineering Co. M-13 Connaught Place, New Delhi, at their office premises in Connaught Place and in their factory premises at Kalkaji, New Delhi, viz.Rate Contract file of M/s Lloyd Electric Engineering Co. in No. SE6/RC/6770/ l/Lloyd/3472 dated 15-4-65 for the period 1965 to date.All supply orders placed on the said firm in the above Rate Contract including Invoices, Bills, Vouchers, Delivery receipts, Inspection notes etc.Purchase files of the above firm for Air Compressors made from M/s Kirloskar Pneumatics, M/s. Sri Ram Refrigeration Industries, M/s. Usha Refregeration Co., and other firms for the period 1965 to date.All correspondence files of M/s Lloyd Electric and Engineering Co. Ltd., D. G. S. and D. and other Government Deptt.regarding supply of Air Conditioners for the period 1965 to date.All correspondence files of M/s Lloyd Electric and Engineering Co., M/s Punj Sons (P) Ltd., M/s. Fedders Lloyd Corporation (P) Ltd., and M/s. Fedders Lloyd Sales Corporation for the period 1965 to date in respect of manufacture and sale of Air-Conditioners, purchase of accessories in the above manufacture with other firms and between themselves also.Correspondence files of the above firms with foreign suppliers in respect of Air Compressors during 1965 to date.Correspondence files of the above four firms with Ministry of Finance for Foreign Exchange allocation for the period 1965 to date.Unit Serial No. Register of Air Conditioners manufactured by the said firms for the period 1965 to date.All documents and Registers of the said firms relating to the payment of Excise Duties on Air-Conditioners for the period 1965 to-date.Cash books and Ledgers, Bahi Katha books of the said firms for the period 1965 to date.Stock, Issue Registers of Air Conditioners manufactured in the Factory and Air Compressors purchased from other firms or imported.Premises to be searched:Office premises of M/s. Punj Sons (P.) Ltd., M/s. Kedders Lloyd Corporation (P.) Ltd., (3) M/s. Lloyd Electric Engineering Corporation at M-13, 'Punj House, Con-naught Place New Delhi.2. Factory premises of M/s. Punj Sons (P.) Ltd. and M/s. Fedders Lloyd Sales Corporation at Kalkaji, New Delhi.Dated 1st Jan. 1968 7.30 A. M.According to the 1st respondent, simultaneous searches had to be carried out in the office premises at Connaught Place and in the Factory premises at Kalkaji, and as it was physically nto possible for him to search both the premises simultaneously, he made an order (Annexure R-1) at 7-45 A. M. on 1-1-1968 under Section 165(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code deputing respondent No. 2 to search the office premises at Connuaght Place, while he himself searched the factory premises at Kalkaji on the same date.The said order runs as under :--"To Shri Jethanand Dy.of Police, S. P. E., C. I. A. (I), New Delhi.Sub: RC.12/67-CIA-Investigation of.For purposes of my investigation in the above case, it has become necessary to conduct simultaneous searches at the office premises of M/s. Lloyd Electric and Engineering Co., M-13, Punj House, Connaught Place and at the Factory premises of M/s. Punj Sons (P.) Ltd., Kalkaji, this morning.Copy of the grounds of search submitted to the Magistrate, 1st Class, Delhi, is enclosed for your information.As I will be engaged in the search of the said factory premises at Kalkaji, I am requesting you to conduct the search of the office premises of M/s. Lloyd Electric and Engineering Co., and other allied concerns located at No. M-13, Punj House, Con-naught Place, New Delhi, as detailed in the said grounds of search and to seize the documents and things referred to therein.This requisition is being made to you in accordance with Section 165(3) Cr.B. A. Lakshminarayana Swamy Deputy Supdt.Civil Writ No. 16 of 1968 was filed by M/s. Fedders Lloyd Corporation (Private) Limited, represented by Director, S. N. P. Punj, Civil Writ No. 17 of 1968 was filed by M/s Lloyd Electric and Engineering Company represented 'by Partner, V. P. Punj, Civil Writ No. 18 of 1968 was filed by Airserco represented by sole proprietor, T. V. P. Punj, Civil Writ No. 19 of 1968 was filed by M/s. Fedders Lloyd Sales Corporation represented by Partner, S. N. P. Punj, and Civil Writ No. 20 of 1968 was filed by M/s Lloyd Sales Corporation represented by Partner Mrs. I. R. Punj.The respondents in all the writ petitions are the same namely, (1) B. A. Lakshminarayana Swami, Dy.S. P. S.P.E.C.I.A. (I), C.B.I., New Delhi, and (2) Jethanand, Dy.S. P., C. I. A. (I), New Delhi.The first respondent further averred in his aforesaid affidavit that he had reliable information that the aforesaid company and its sister concerns, in conspiracy with the above mentioned S. S. Chouhan and H. C. Mehrotra, cheated the Government of India and some State Governments in supplying sub-standard air-conditioners under a Rate Contract entered into by the aforesaid company and its sister concerns with the D. G. S. and D., that the air-conditioners supplied under the said Rate Contract were fitted with indigenous compressors whereas the requirement of the Rate Contract was for fitting the said air-conditioners with imported compressors made in U. S. A., and that this was done by dishonestly removing the manufacturer's name plate, disfiguring the markings of the Indian compressors, and passing off the units as being fitted with foreign compressors.Requisition u/s. 165 (3) Cr.of Police, S. P. E., C. I. A. (I), New Delhi.7.45 A. M.They thereupon filed the present five writ petitions in this Court on 8-1-1968 praying for the issue of "a direction in the nature of a mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith return the documents and things seized on 1st January, 1968, under Annexures 'B' and 'C'", and for certain other interim reliefs.(2) that the action of the 2nd respondent in having searched the office premises of the petitioners at Punj House, Connaught Place, New Delhi, and in having seized the documents and things mentioned in Annexure 'C' to the writ petition, was illegal and contrary to the mandatory provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 165 Criminal Procedure Code, in that the respondent No. 1 did nto make any order in writing recording his reasons for his being unable to conduct the search himself in person, and in that the 1st respondent did nto deliver an order in writing to respondent No. 2 specifying therein the place to be searched and the things for which the search is to be made, and the second respondent did nto have any such order as is contemplated by Section 165(3), Criminal Procedure Code, nor did he show any such order to the petitioners; and (3) that the searches and seizures made by the two respondents were contrary to law and illegal for the further reason that the copies or the record, if any, made under Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (3) of Section 165, Criminal Procedure Code, were nto sent forthwith to the nearest Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence, as provided for in Sub-section (5) of Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code.In reply to the writ petitions, an affidavit of the 1st respondent, dated 21-1-1968, which has already been referred to above, was filed.As already stated, the 1st respondent averred in the said reply that the five petitioner-concerns are the concerns of the Punj family which is carrying on business under the name and style of and is controlling the five petitioner-concerns.It was further averred that V. P. Punj was shown the requisite orders along with the grounds for search, that the search and seizure were made strictly in accordance with law, that he did make an order under Section 165(3) Criminal Procedure Code, a copy of which was filed as Annexure R-1 to the reply affidavit, that as it was nto physically possible for him to make the searches both at Con-naught Place and at Kalkaji, he searched the factory premises at Kalkaji and deputed respondent No. 2 to search the office premises at Connaught Place, that the report prepared under Section 165(3), Criminal Procedure Code, was shown to V. P. Punj who was a partner or executive and represented all the firms, along with a copy of the grounds for search, that in token of having seen them he endorsed the grounds for search with the remark "seen" and signed it, that that fact was also mentioned in the seizure list, a copy of which was given to V. P. Punj and was acknowledged by him, that a copy of the record prepared under Section 165(3), Criminal Procedure Code, and a copy of the seizure list were also sent to the Magistrate, 1st Class, Delhi, though there was some delay as the same was sent on 10-1-1968 when the deponent returned from tour which he had to undertake on Government duty immediately after the search and seizure on 1-1-1968, that the record prepared under Sec, 165 (1), Criminal Procedure Code, was sent to the Magistrate on the day of the search itself, and that, therefore the searches and the seizures were quite legal and in accordance with law.As a rejoinder to the said reply V. P. Pun] filed an affidavit, dated 23-1-1968, in which he stated that it was incorrect to say that he was shown "the requisite orders along with the grounds for search", that the only document that was shown to him was Annexure 'A' to the writ petition (i. e. the record made under Section 165(1), Criminal Procedure Code), wherein he made the endorsement "seen V. P. Punj", that excepting that document, no other document was shown to him by either of the respondents, and that no separate record under Section 165(3) or Annexure R-1 or separate record containing the grounds under Section 163(1) was shown to him at any time.Shri S. N. P. Punj also filed an affidavit, dated 23-1-1968, as a rejoinder to the reply of the respondents.In this affidavit, it was reiterated that the respondents did nto comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 165, Criminal Procedure Code, and it was stated that the First Information Report was dated 28-124967, that it contains an endorsement which shows that it was forwarded on the same day to Shri M. S. Joshi, Special fudge, Delhi, that another endorsement thereon shows that it was received by the learned Special Judge at 1-10 P. M. on 3-1-1968, that on 8-1-1968, an application for copies of the record made under Section 165 Criminal Procedure Code, was made by the petitioners in the Court 08 the Special Judge for S. P. E. cases, Delhi, as provided in the proviso to Section 165(S) of the Criminal Procedure Code, that the Special Judge directed the Senior Public Prosecutor, Cia (I) to report immediately, that the Senior Public Prosecutor, in his turn, called upon the Investigating Officer to report by 2 P. M, on 8-1-1968, that on 9-1-1968, the record under Section 165 (1), dated 1-1-1968, signed by B. A. Lakshminarayana Swamy, 1st respondent, and the requisition or order under Section 165(3), also signed by B. A. Lakshminarayana Swamy, were submitted in the Court of the Special Judge, Delhi, and copies of the said two documents were supplied to the petitioners by an order of the Special Judge, Delhi, dated 9-1-1968, that photostat copies of the application, dated 8-1-1968, for emergent copies of the record made under Section 165(1) with endorsement thereon, the order of the Special Judge, dated 9-1-1968, directing copies of the documents to be furnished, the copies of the First Information Report, the record under Section 165(1), and the requisition or order under Section 165(3) were filed as Annexures 1 to 5 to this affidavit, and that the above facts show clearly that the provisions of Sub-sections (1), (3) and (5) of Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code were nto complied with at all, and consequently the searches and the seizures were illegal and invalid.The first respondent, B. A. Lakshminarayana Swamy filed a further affidavit dated 27-1-1968, in reply to the aforesaid rejoinder affidavit of V. P. Punj and S. N. P. Punj.The said conclusion of the High Court that the search was defective was nto challenged in the Supreme Court.

Cited provisions: Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code