This Article has been written by Mr. Vivek Toppo , a 3rd year BALLB student of National Law University Odisha.

Introduction:-

The case of State of UP v M.K. Anthony (1985) is a landmark case in Indian criminal law that deals with the admissibility of evidence collected through an illegal search and seizure. This case has far-reaching implications for the criminal justice system and highlights the importance of protecting citizens’ fundamental right to privacy.

Background:-

This case of State of UP v M.K. Anthony (1985) involves a search and seizure conducted by the police at the premises of M.K. Anthony, the accused in the case. The prosecution claimed to have obtained certain documents during the search that were incriminating and relevant to the charges against the accused.

However, the search was conducted without a warrant, and the accused was not informed of his right to refuse the search. The accused challenged the legality of the search and seizure and argued that the evidence collected during the search should not be admissible in court.

The case was heard by the Supreme Court of India, which had to determine whether evidence collected through an illegal search and seizure could be admitted as evidence in a criminal trial. The court’s decision in this case has far-reaching implications for the criminal justice system and the protection of citizens’ fundamental rights.

Issue :-

The issue in the case of State of UP v M.K. Anthony (1985) was whether the evidence collected by the prosecution was admissible in court, considering that it was obtained through an illegal search and seizure.

Law:-

 The law applicable in this case is the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, specifically Sections 24, 25, 26, 27, and 165. Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that, “a confession made by an accused person is not admissible as evidence if it appears to have been obtained by inducement, threat or promise”. Section 25 of the Act “prohibits the use of any confession made to a police officer while in custody, unless it was made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate”. Section 26 provides that “no confession made by an accused person is admissible as evidence against a co-accused”. Section 27 of the Act “allows for the admissibility of information received from an accused person while in custody, provided it leads to the discovery of a fact”.

The court then discussed the applicability of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court noted that Section 27 allowed for the admissibility of information received from an accused person while in custody, provided it led to the discovery of a fact. The court held that in this case, there was no information received from the accused, and therefore Section 27 was not applicable.  In addition the court also made an analysis of Section 165 allows for the search of any place by a police officer in order to find evidence which may be the subject of an offence, subject to certain conditions.

The court ultimately held that the search conducted by the police was in violation of the accused’s fundamental right to privacy, as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. The court also held that the documents obtained during the illegal search were inadmissible as evidence, as they had been obtained in violation of the law. The court further noted that even if the documents had been obtained through a legal search, they would still not have been admissible as they were not relevant to the charges against the accused. 

Application:-

 In this case, the prosecution claimed to have obtained certain incriminating documents during a search of the accused person premises. However, the search was conducted without a warrant, and the accused was not informed of his right to refuse the search. The documents were seized and used as evidence against the accused in court. The defense argued that the search was illegal and therefore the evidence collected should not be admissible in court.

The court held that the search conducted by the police was in violation of the accused’s fundamental right to privacy, as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. The court also held that the documents obtained during the illegal search were inadmissible as evidence, as they had been obtained in violation of the law. The court further noted that even if the documents had been obtained through a legal search, they would still not have been admissible as they were not relevant to the charges against the accused.

The court also discussed the applicability of Sections 24, 25, 26, and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court noted that Section 24 prohibited the use of any confession obtained through inducement, threat, or promise, and that Section 25 prohibited the use of any confession made to a police officer while in custody. The court also noted that Section 26 prohibited the use of any confession made by an accused person against a co-accused. The court held that in this case, there was no confession made by the accused, and therefore Sections 24, 25, and 26 were not applicable.

The court then discussed the applicability of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court noted that Section 27 allowed for the admissibility of information received from an accused person while in custody, provided it led to the discovery of a fact. The court held that in this case, there was no information received from the accused, and therefore Section 27 was not applicable.

Constitutional Outlook:-

This case deals with the constitutional validity of evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The court’s decision in this case upholds the fundamental right to privacy, which is enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to privacy. The court in this case recognized that the right to privacy is a fundamental right that is essential to the enjoyment of other rights. The court held that any intrusion into a person’s privacy must be based on lawful authority and must be reasonable.

The court also recognized that the power to search and seize is a serious invasion of a person’s privacy, and that the state must ensure that this power is not abused. The court emphasized that the state must balance the need for law enforcement with the protection of individual rights.

In this case, the court found that the search conducted by the police was in violation of the accused’s fundamental right to privacy, and that the evidence obtained through this illegal search was inadmissible in court. This decision is consistent with the constitutional principles of protecting individual rights and ensuring that the state’s actions are lawful and reasonable.

Precedents used:-

1. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978): In this case, the Supreme Court of India recognized the right to personal liberty as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court held that any law or action that deprives a person of their personal liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable.
2. Kedar Nath v State of Bihar (1962): This case dealt with the admissibility of confessions made to a police officer while in custody. The court held that such confessions were not admissible in court as they were obtained through coercion and were therefore not voluntary.
3. Ratan Singh v State of Punjab (1965): This case dealt with the admissibility of evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The court held that evidence obtained in violation of the law was inadmissible in court, and that the state must respect the right to privacy of its citizens.
4. Pooran Mal v Director of Inspection (1974): In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure was inadmissible in court, regardless of its relevance to the charges against the accused.
5. Nazir khan v State of Delhi (2003): This case reaffirmed the principle that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure was in admissible in court, and that the state must respect the right to privacy of its citizens.  

Conclusion:-

The case of State of UP v M.K. Anthony (1985) sets an important precedent in Indian criminal law regarding the admissibility of evidence collected through illegal searches and seizures. This case highlights the importance of protecting citizens’ fundamental right to privacy and ensures that evidence collected through illegal means cannot be used against an accused person in court. It is a reminder that law enforcement agencies must adhere to legal procedures and respect citizens’ rights while conducting searches and seizures. 

The court’s decision has had a significant impact on the criminal justice system in India and serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of all citizens.

References:-

Table of Cases:

1. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India [1978] AIR 597.
2. Kedar Nath v State of Bihar [1962] 1 SCR 728. 
3. Ratan Singh v State of Punjab [1965] 1 SCR 185.
4. Pooran Mal v Director of Inspection [1974] 1 S.C.R. 345.
5. Nazir khan v State of Delhi [2003] 1 SCR 745. 

Table of Statutes:-

1. The Indian Evidence Act, 1850 
2. The Constitution of India, 1949