9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (4) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enal Code. The State has preferred the present appeal against their acquittal. 2. The prosecution case against the respondents was that on the 14th October, 1959 Mr. R. Raman, Deputy Superintendent, Central Excise (P.W. 11) received a letter (Ext. 3) from the Collector of Central Excise to enquire about the smuggling of contraband tobacco within Barauni Range. He deputed P.W.'s 8 and 12 to make preliminary enquiries. On the 16th October, Mr. Raman went to Gopalganj accompanied by an inspector (P.W. 1) on the 17th October he obtained several search warrants from the prescribed authority against various persons of different villages including respondents Adam Hussain and his son Abedin. Those search warrants were executed on the 18th October, on the 19th October, the Superintendent of Central Excise (P.W. 2) and an inspector (P.W. 3) arrived at Gopalganj and it was decided that further search should be undertaken. Some more search warrants were obtained, two of which were against persons in village Pipra and four for village Kamalpur. The two search warrants for Pipra were against respondents Sheikh Ali Raza and Md. Islam. Armed with those search warrants the excise party left Gopa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lea of alibi that he was lying ill on that date at the house of his relation in village Ekma and was under treatment of the Medical Officer of Ekma Block. 4.The charge against all the respondents was that they were members of an unlawful assembly and did in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, that is, to obstruct Shri R. Raman and other employees of the Central Excise Department in lawful discharge of their duty and to assault them, committed the offence of rioting punishable under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also charged for having assaulted and used criminal force to Shri R. Raman, D.K. Bhattacharya, K.K. Pandey, B.N. Pandey, R.R. Prasad and P.B. Ghosh all public servants and employees of the Central Excise Department when they were discharging their duty as public servants. They were, therefore, charged under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. The individual accused persons were also charged with the offence under section 323 in regard to assaults given by them to individual prosecution witnesses. 5In trial court, as already stated, convicted the. ten respondents of the present appeal for offences under sections 353 and 147 of the Penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act or these Rules." The scope of this rule is limited. Authorised officers not below the rank of Inspector are competent to have free access to any premises licensed or to any place where excisable goods are stored without any search warrant, but the purpose for which they can do such an act is stated in the last portion of the rule quoted above, and they are only for testing the accuracy of any return submitted by the person concerned under the Excise Rules or for getting the particulars regarding which information is required from the person concerned under the Act and the Rules. Beyond these two things if any search or inspection is to be made they are not covered by the authority given under Rule 197 by the Collector of the Central Excise to his prescribed subordinate officers. Rule 201 deals with powers to enter and search and provides : "The Central Government may empower any officers of any department under its control to - (1) 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 has reason to believe that excisable goods, saltpetre or composition for match-heads or s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed respondent no. 1. When he and his sons and others came there, they were asked to measure the stock which were kept on the roof of Adam Hussain's house and the dalan of Hadayat Mian. Learned Standing Counsel very much stressed upon this evidence and argued that for the purpose of further check in continuation of the check done on the 18th October and for the purpose of the inspection of the stock which was to verify the return that Adam Hussain had submitted, the party called upon him to give them free access to his premises. He contended that this would come within the scope of rule 197. But in cross examination the witness admitted that he had information that excess tobacco of Adam Hussain, Abedin had been kept in the premises of Ali Raza and Islam. So he had taken search warrants to search the premises of Ali Raza and Islam on the 20th. In his written report (Exhibit 4) given to the officer-in-charge of the Gopalganj police station on the 20th October, 1959, he stated that following information received at headquarters office by the Collector, Central Excise, Patna, Bihar, regarding large scale smuggling of tobacco in villages Manjha, Pipra, Phulbaria, Kamalpur etc. in Gopalg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntendent (meaning P.W. 11) had not insisted upon search, there would have been no uproar at the time of the occurrence. P.W. 1, the Inspector of Central Excise, said that in October, 1959 a complaint was filed before him that contraband tobacco had been kept at village Pipra and other villages. On the 20th they started from Gopalganj for search along with the Superintendent and the Deputy Superintendent and others. P.W. 3 another Inspector of Central Excise, also said that the Deputy Superintendent had told him that tobacco was concealed to the south of the mosque in village Pipra. P.W. 8 another Inspector, said that on the 20th October, 1959 he was in the detection party. All this evidence brought out clearly that the purpose for which the excise party went to the premises of Adam Hussain was for detection of contraband tobacco smuggled in contravention of the Act and rules. They were therefore, under the imperative duty of observing the requisites provided under section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before they could conduct any search or inspection. Since they did not do so, their intended search was illegal and any obstruction offered to them by respondent No. 1 or his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
