Arrest, Search and Seizure: A Study of Procedural Laws through Judicial Delineations

Abstract

The basic objective of the enactment of the procedural laws is to differentiate between Rule of Law and Rule of Whims and Caprice. Due adherence to procedural law affirms to the notion of due procedure established by Constitution of India under Article 21. Since, procedural laws are subject to practical application by the executive, it is necessary to acknowledge the significant uncertainties entailed with it. Therefore, strict compliances become difficult. Also, the code stipulates gender-specific provisions to fulfil certain objectives. Since, the Code of Criminal Procedure is silent about the effect of deviance from the procedural guidelines, the role of Judiciary becomes essential. This paper studies various judicial decisions, interpretations, and guidelines to ascertain the judicial perseverance on the adherence to procedural laws and whether a deviance would be enough to vitiate the trial or would merely be considered as a procedural lacuna, not having an impact on the judicial mind. In addition to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for offences related to drugs, procedure is followed according to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and in some states the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958 has been levied, this Act prevails over the Code of Criminal Procedure, so the role of Judiciary in assuaging the inconsistencies between them become essential. This paper aims to study the different judicial pronouncements to ascertain the stance of Judiciary on the non-compliance to procedural laws on Arrest, Search and Seizure and study the inconsistencies between the Code of Criminal Procedure and acts for specific offences and special laws.