Mandatory recording of belief before urgent search without warrant is essential; non-compliance invalidates the search and conviction.

A statutory requirement to record the grounds of belief before conducting an urgent search without warrant was held mandatory, not merely procedural. Because no such grounds were recorded before the car was searched, the search was unlawful and beyond jurisdiction. The Act's reference to a place liable to search was held to include a car, but that did not cure non-compliance with the safeguard designed to prevent arbitrary search and protect personal liberty. The conviction founded on that illegal search could not stand, and the accused was entitled to acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the search of the car and the consequent conviction under the Mysore Excise Act were vitiated for -compliance with the statutory requirement of recording grounds of belief before conducting search under the urgent-search provision.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguished between searches made under warrant and urgent searches without warrant. The urgent-search provision required the officer to record the grounds of belief before entering and searching, where obtaining a warrant would defeat the purpose of the search. The record showed no such grounds had been recorded before the car was searched. A car fell within the expression used in the Act for the place liable to search. The omission was therefore not a mere irregularity but a direct failure to comply with a mandatory safeguard designed to protect personal liberty and prevent arbitrary search.

Conclusion: The search was without jurisdiction and the conviction based on that search could not stand; the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute makes recording of grounds of belief a precondition for an urgent search without warrant, non-compliance renders the search illegal and vitiates any conviction founded upon it.

---