Routine excise inspection versus search: HC upheld conviction and rejected acquittal based on alleged illegality of inspection.

A routine inspection by a Central Excise Inspector was held within jurisdiction and not a search requiring compliance with special search provisions, so the acquittal based on alleged illegality of inspection was erroneous. The HC found the prosecution evidence credible, rejected the defence of false implication, and held that obstruction and assault on the Inspector were unjustified even apart from the inspection issue. It further upheld the conviction for theft of a fountain-pen under Section 379 IPC. The order of acquittal was set aside and the trial court's conviction restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Excise Inspector's visit to the godown amounted to a search requiring compliance with Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the acquittal based on alleged illegality of the inspection could stand.

Analysis: The proceedings showed that the officer was seeking to inspect the godown and make a physical verification in discharge of his official functions, not to conduct a search for concealed incriminating articles. Inspection of a godown by a Central Excise Inspector was treated as a permissible official act, and the safeguards applicable to a search under Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were held inapplicable on these facts. The appellate acquittal was therefore founded on a premise. The evidence also supported the convictions for theft and assault, and the trial court's findings were not shown to be unsound.

Conclusion: The alleged illegal search objection failed, the acquittal was set aside, and the convictions recorded by the trial court were restored.

---