Irregular search procedure did not vitiate conviction where substantive evidence proved possession of contraband.

A warrantless search conducted without recording the statutory grounds of immediate necessity and without strictly associating two respectable local witnesses was treated as irregular, but not fatal to the prosecution where the evidence of the Excise Inspector and search witnesses established possession of cocaine in the accused's house. The court held that defects in search procedure did not outweigh substantive proof of possession, and absence of full compliance with search formalities did not bar conviction when the offence was otherwise proved. The conviction was therefore upheld and the application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 60(a) of the U.P. Excise Act was vitiated by the alleged illegality and irregularity in the search conducted without a warrant and without securing two respectable local witnesses.

Analysis: Section 53 of the U.P. Excise Act requires an officer, before entering and searching without a warrant, to record the grounds of belief that immediate search is necessary where delay would enable escape or concealment of evidence. The record showed no such formal recording, and the search was also conducted without strictly complying with the requirement of associating two respectable inhabitants of the locality under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. However, the evidence of the Excise Inspector and the search witnesses, as accepted by the courts below, established that the accused was found in possession of cocaine in his house. The irregularity in the search procedure did not nullify the substantive evidence of possession, and the absence of a warrant or full compliance with search formalities did not bar conviction where the offence was otherwise proved.

Conclusion: The conviction was not vitiated by the irregular search, and the application was dismissed.

---