Whether the omission to record the reasons was only an irregularity and that the respondents had no right to prevent the officer from making the search because as that contention had not been raised till then it felt that there was no justification to allow it to be raised before it for the first time?
Section 342, Cr. P.C. is not confined to offences against public servants but is a general Section and makes a person who wrongfully restrains another, guilty of the offence under that Section. A wrongful confinement is a wrongful restraint in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond a certain circumscribed limit. This offence has nothing to do with the investigation or search and, therefore, the argument that the accused were entitled to obstruct P.W. 1 because he did not conform to the provisions of Section 165, Cr. P.C. is an argument of desperation.