Irregular search procedure and Article 20(3) objection did not invalidate excise penalty and confiscation orders.

An irregular search under Section 165 CrPC, as incorporated by Section 18 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, did not by itself invalidate the excise proceedings or the penalty and confiscation orders, because the impugned action rested on broader material and not on the search defect alone. A statement recorded before the show-cause notice was also held outside Article 20(3), since no formal accusation of an offence existed when it was taken; the constitutional protection arose only later. The statement was therefore available for consideration, and the excise orders were not disturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-compliance with the search procedure under Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, read with Section 18 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, vitiated the excise proceedings and the orders imposing penalty and confiscation; (ii) Whether the statement recorded from the petitioner before the show-cause notice was hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and could not be relied upon.

Issue (i): Whether non-compliance with the search procedure under Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, read with Section 18 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, vitiated the excise proceedings and the orders imposing penalty and confiscation

Analysis: Section 18 required searches under the Act and the Rules to be carried out in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. The search in the present case did not comply with Section 165, but the Court followed the settled view that such illegality in search does not automatically invalidate subsequent proceedings. The impugned orders were based on a broader body of material and not on the search defect alone.

Conclusion: The search irregularity did not render the proceedings or the orders illegal or void.

Issue (ii): Whether the statement recorded from the petitioner before the show-cause notice was hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and could not be relied upon

Analysis: The protection against testimonial compulsion applies only when there is a formal accusation relating to an offence. On the facts, the Court held that no such formal accusation existed when the statement was recorded on 27-1-1960; the accusation arose only later with the show-cause notice. The statement therefore did not attract Article 20(3). The Court also accepted that the petitioner had been given an opportunity of hearing and that the statement was not the sole basis of the adverse orders.

Conclusion: The statement was not excluded by Article 20(3) and was available for consideration.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because neither the alleged illegality in the search nor the constitutional objection to the recorded statement justified interference with the excise orders.

Ratio Decidendi: An irregular search under the Code of Criminal Procedure does not by itself nullify subsequent proceedings, and Article 20(3) is attracted only after a formal accusation of an offence exists.

---