Bapna, J.—This is an appeal by the State against the order of acquittal of Rehman respondent on a charge under sec. 353 of the Indian Penal Code by the Munsif Magistrate, Hindaun by order of 4th of August, 1956.

2. The case for the prosecution is that Mr. Sri Kishen Ahluwalia Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise having headquarter at Bharatpur went on the 7th of September, 1953 to village Kot. He received information that Sullad and his son Rehman had cultivated tobacco but had not paid the excise duty thereon. On the 9th of September, 1955, he decided to go to the house of Rehman and after 2 P. M. went to his house and asked him to show his tobacco. Rehman replied that he had some tobacco with him but he would not show it. Shri Ahluwalia, Deputy Superintendent, was accompanied by Mr. Nand Kishore Maheshwari, Inspector Central Excise, Ramchand Sepoy, Nopa Chokidar and two Motbirs, Kapurchand and Phulchand. Shri Ahluwalia decided to take the search of the house of Rehman, but Dhamman and Rehman obstructed the making of the search and pushed aside Ramchand and Shri Ahluwalia. Shri Ahluwalia fell down and as a result received two injuries, one abrasion and the other a contused wound on his leg. A report was made at the Police Station, Mahuwa on the same day at 6 P. M.

3. Rehman and Dhamman were prosecuted. Dhamman was discharged and Rehman was convicted under sec. 353, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment by the learned Munsif Magistrate, Hindaun on the 2nd of June, 1953. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge was of opinion that search had not been proved to have been made in accordance with the provision of sec. 165, Criminal Procedure Code which were applicable in view of sec. 18 of the Central Excise and Salts Act (No. I of 1944). It was pointed out that there was no evidence to show that the officer had recorded his reasons in writing before attempting to search the place. He set aside the conviction and remanded the case for a fresh enquiry. After remand a document Ex. P-5 was produced by Sri Ahluwalia as a record of reasons before the search was attempted and he was recalled for examination. The learned Magistrate did not accept this document to have been drawn up before search and held that the provisions of sec. 165, Criminal Procedure Code had not been complied with. He accordingly acquitted the accused by his judgment dated the 4th August, 1956.

4. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the State and the first ground argued was that it was not obligatory on the excise officers to record reasons before attempting to make a search. It was argued that the powers to make a search were conferred by Central Excise and Salts Act (No. I of 1944) and rules thereunder and as this was a special Act, the restrictions mentioned in sec. 165, Criminal Procedure Code were not applicable.

5. The relevant provisions were carefully considered. Sec. 18 of Act No. 1 of 1944 is to the effect that "all searches made under this Act or any rules made thereunder and all orders made under this Act shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (No. V of 1898) relating respectively to searches and arrests made under that Code". Sec. 37 enables the Central Government to make rules among other things for authorising and regulating inspection of factories and to provide for the taking of samples and for the making of tests of any substance produced therein and for the inspection or search of any place or conveyance used for the production, storage, sale or transport of salt and so far as such inspection and search is essential for the proper levy and collection of the duties imposed by the Act of any excisable goods. R. 201 authorises the Central Government to empower any officers of the department under its control to enter and search at any time by day or by night any land, building, enclosed place, premises, vessel, conveyance, or other place upon or in which he h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document