Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Locality. - The term locality as has been used in section 104 does not refer to any specific locality. However, the inference co-relating to the purpose of the provisions may be that the locality will mean the inhabitated area surrounding the place to be searched. However, the locality will also include the nearest village and town if the other requirement of the provision cannot be fulfilled from the adjoining locality. The main purpose of the Legislature for incorporating the term locality in the provisions is as to make it necessary for the Investigating/Searching Officers to conduct fair searches without violating the personal rights of the people and to avoid mala fide involvement of innocent people. Where the search has to be conducted in densely populated town, the term locality will mean the minimum vicinity from the place of search from which the witnesses should be joined as witnesses to the search. Person appearing as a witness in other cases is not disqualified to be a witness in subsequent cases. A person has been convicted for illegal possession of illicit liquor under the Excise Act. Conviction cannot be set aside only on the ground that the witnesses were not joined from the same locality. The search witnesses were joined from a locality different from the place searched without making any attempt to join witness from the same locality. }be search was held not to be good and the prosecution cannot be abased on the search alone. Term locality has not been defined in the Act on the basis of distance in furlongs etc. A per- son joined as a witness living at a distance of one furlong in the same locality. It was held that there was nothing on in joining a person living one furlong away from the place of search as a search witness. The object of the search frustrate but the search cannot be held to bl vitiated merely on the ground that witnesses to the search were not from the same locality. Excise Inspector failed to call witnesses of the locality to join the search. Prosecution failed and the conviction was set aside. The term locality does not mean a locality at sonte's throw from the place of search or local- ity within the same quarter. The term is comprehensive and includes the places even within 34 miles, from the place of search. It is also not necessary implication of the provision that the witnesses must be from the one locality. The witnesses can be joined from the different localities surrounding the place of search. The legislators have laid much emphasis on the respectability and not on the term locality. Therefore, joining the respectable witnesses from different locality does not vitiate search. Where the panches of the Gram Panchyat were joined as witnesses, it is not necessary that they should be immediate neighbourers. Term witness from the locality includes a person staying as an accused to a person of the locality. A Person known to be of doubtful integrity should not be joined as a witness from a distant place. The witnesses were taken from different localities. One witness taken from the same locality was not examined. Purpose of taking witnesses from different localities including the localities distant from the place of search conveys intention of the Searching Officer to join various type of witnesses to make easily available to support every type of story forwarded by the prosecution. Recovery held to be under suspicious circumstances. The searching Officer started search without joining respectable persons available in the locality but leaving the door open with the purpose and intention to facilitate the person to witness the search with an intention to make easily available every type of witness to support every type of story forwarded by the prosecution. Search /witness conducted on the basis of prior information not joining independent witnesses creates suspicion. Search of a person without calling witnesses of the locality. Prosecution doubtful. Various persons available to be joined from the adjoining shops as witnesses to the search. The Joining only official witnesses. Recovery becomes doubtful. Where the search is to be made on the basis of prior information, it is incumbent upon the searching Officer to join independent witnesses from the locality. Prosecution based on testimony of the Police Officers alone is not sustainable. It is the duty of the Police to join independent witnesses in the raid. Independent witnesses easily available but not joined prosecution case becomes doubtful. A person from the neighbourhood called to be a witness of recovery of incriminatory articles from the accused, it becomes incumbent upon the said person to attest the recovery memo. Where independent witnesses were easily available from the locality to join raiding party. Raiding party had availed opportunity to do so but failed. Only the official witnesses in the circumstances cannot be relied upon and cannot sustain the conviction. Non independent witnesses despite being available joined. Prosecution tried to prove the recovery by an alleged eye witness who refused to support the prosecution case. Recovery was held to be doubtful and conviction set aside. The testimony of official witnesses loses its evidentiary value where the available inde- pendent witnesses were not joined. Prosecution held to be doubtful and accused was acquitted. Search/raid conducted at the Bus-stand without joining any independent witness. Search conducted on the basis of a secret information held. It would cause doubt even on the testimony of the official witnesses. Official witnesses can also be relied upon where no independent witness was available to be joined and no animus against the Police Officer was alleged. But where the prosecution had availed opportunity to associate independent witnesses and they had not done so, the prosecution becomes doubtful and conviction was set aside.