Search safeguards for suspected contraband were mandatory, but rioting conviction stood on proof of assault by an unlawful assembly.

Excise officers' proposed visit was treated as a search for suspected contraband, not a mere inspection under Rule 197, so Rule 201 and section 165 CrPC safeguards were mandatory; because those safeguards were not followed, obstruction to the officers could not sustain conviction under section 353 IPC, and that acquittal was confirmed. The evidence nevertheless showed an unlawful assembly that followed the excise party and attacked it with lathis and brick-bats, supported by injuries and medical evidence, so the common object of assault was proved and conviction under section 147 IPC was restored with the reduced sentence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the excise officers' intended search and inspection were authorised under Rule 197 of the Central Excise Rules or required compliance with Rule 201 and section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether obstruction to such officers could sustain a conviction under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. (ii) Whether the evidence established an unlawful assembly with the common object of assault, so as to sustain conviction under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code.

Issue (i): Whether the excise officers' intended search and inspection were authorised under Rule 197 of the Central Excise Rules or required compliance with Rule 201 and section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether obstruction to such officers could sustain a conviction under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: The intended visit was not a mere inspection to verify returns or obtain information under Rule 197. The surrounding circumstances, the prior collection of search warrants, the report of suspected concealment and smuggling, and the object of detecting contraband tobacco showed that the officers were proceeding to search for suspected contravention of the Act and Rules. That brought the action within Rule 201, and the safeguards of section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had to be observed. As they were not observed, the intended search was not lawful. Obstruction to officers acting outside lawful authority could not amount to obstruction of a public servant in the lawful discharge of duty.

Conclusion: The conviction under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code was not sustainable and the acquittal on that count stood confirmed.

Issue (ii): Whether the evidence established an unlawful assembly with the common object of assault, so as to sustain conviction under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: The failure to prove the common object of obstructing public servants did not necessarily defeat the distinct and additional common object of assault. The evidence, including injuries proved on several members of the excise party and the circumstances that the mob followed the party and attacked it with lathis and brick-bats, supported the conclusion that the assembly had the common object of assaulting the officers and their party. Presence of the respondents at the occurrence was not in doubt, and the medical evidence corroborated the assault.

Conclusion: The conviction under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code was justified and was restored with the reduced sentence imposed by the High Court.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of restoring the rioting conviction and sentence, while the acquittal on the charge of obstructing public servants was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where officers proceed to search premises for suspected contraband and the search falls within the statutory search power rather than a mere inspection power, compliance with the prescribed procedural safeguards is mandatory; but an illegal search does not preclude conviction for rioting if the evidence independently establishes an unlawful assembly with the common object of assault.

---