Mandatory search safeguards under excise law and CrPC must be followed; illegal search cannot sustain conviction.

Mandatory pre-search safeguards under section 55 of the A.P. Excise Act and section 100(4) CrPC must be strictly followed before a warrantless search. The officer must record the grounds of belief for the search, and independent witnesses must be associated in the prescribed manner, with a written order where required. On the stated facts, the officials searched the vehicle without recording the necessary grounds and without complying with the statutory procedure. The search was therefore held illegal and without jurisdiction, and the conviction based on that search could not be sustained; the conviction and sentence were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the search and seizure were vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of section 55 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the conviction could therefore be sustained.

Analysis: Section 55 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 requires the officer, before searching without warrant, to record the grounds of belief that an offence under the Act has been, is being, or is likely to be committed and that delay in obtaining a warrant would permit escape or concealment of evidence. Section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 similarly requires the search officer to call independent witnesses and, where necessary, issue a written order. On the evidence, the officials intercepted the vehicle and conducted the search without recording the required grounds and without following the statutory procedure for associating witnesses. Such safeguards are mandatory and are designed to protect personal liberty and prevent arbitrary searches.

Conclusion: The search and seizure were illegal and without jurisdiction, and the conviction based on such search could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, and the conviction and sentence were set aside because the prosecution failed to establish compliance with the mandatory search provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: Failure to comply with mandatory pre-search safeguards prescribed by the excise law and the Code of Criminal Procedure renders the search without jurisdiction and vitiates the resultant conviction.

---