Lawful seizure and corroboration requirements defeated charges of forcible taking and assault in an excise dispute.

Lawful seizure of goods required a seizure-list and contemporaneous compliance with Section 165 CrPC; absent those steps, the goods remained only under illegal detention and not in the inspector's lawful possession. The prosecution's allegation of forcible taking and use of force depended mainly on the excise inspector's solitary testimony, which was treated with caution because of admitted enmity and lack of corroboration from other witnesses. On that reasoning, the alleged seizure was not proved in law, the accused were entitled to recover the goods from illegal detention, and offences under Sections 395 and 353 IPC were not made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether the alleged seizure of the goods was legally proved, and whether the accused could be convicted for forcibly taking away the goods and for use of force against the excise inspector.

Analysis: The evidence did not establish a lawful seizure. No seizure-list was prepared, and no contemporaneous writing satisfying the requirements of Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. In the absence of such compliance, the goods were at best under illegal detention for investigation and had not come into the lawful possession of the inspector. The prosecution case of force rested substantially on the solitary testimony of the inspector, which was viewed with caution in the background of admitted enmity, while the other witnesses did not support the allegation of forcible taking away.

Conclusion: The alleged seizure was not proved in law, the accused were entitled to take back the goods from illegal detention, and the offences under Sections 395 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were not made out.

---