Irregular search does not automatically void excise seizure where independent evidence proves unlawful manufacture and removal of goods.

An irregular search for want of recorded reasons and a warrant does not by itself invalidate seizure, further investigation, or the prosecution where independent substantive evidence proves the excise offences. The article notes that oral evidence of excise officers and joint and individual confessional statements were treated as sufficient despite hostile witnesses, supporting findings that excisable goods were manufactured and removed without duty and without the required gate pass. On sentence, the discussion records that the court considered the statutory limits, first-offender status, and long pendency, and imposed fine in place of imprisonment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether contravention of Sections 103 and 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in conducting the search vitiated the seizure, further investigation, and the prosecution for offences under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. (ii) Whether the accused had committed the offences under Sections 9(i)(a), 9(i)(b), 9(i)(bb) and 9(i)(bbb) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and what sentence was .

Issue (i): Whether contravention of Sections 103 and 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in conducting the search vitiated the seizure, further investigation, and the prosecution for offences under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The search was held to be irregular for want of recorded reasons and for not obtaining a warrant. However, later Supreme Court authority was applied for the proposition that even if a search is illegal, the seizure of the goods is not automatically invalid and the validity of further investigation and the trial does not fail on that ground alone. The evidence of the excise officers and the confessional statements was treated as sufficient notwithstanding the hostile witnesses.

Conclusion: The irregularity in search did not vitiate the seizure, investigation, or trial; the objection was rejected against the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused had committed the offences under Sections 9(i)(a), 9(i)(b), 9(i)(bb) and 9(i)(bbb) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and what sentence was .

Analysis: The Court relied on the oral evidence of the excise officials and the joint and individual confessional statements to hold that the firm manufactured and removed excisable goods without payment of duty and without the required gate pass. On sentence, the Court considered the statutory limits, the first-offender plea, the long pendency of the prosecution, and imposed only fine in place of imprisonment.

Conclusion: The offences were proved and the conviction was sustained, but the sentence was confined to fine of Rs. 250 each with default imprisonment.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside, the appeal succeeded, and the accused were convicted and fined for the excise offences proved against them.

Ratio Decidendi: An illegal or irregular search does not, by itself, invalidate the seizure of goods or the ensuing prosecution when the substantive evidence independently establishes the excise offences.

---