Obstruction of lawful excise search: warrant defect did not nullify authority, and wilful resistance sustained the penalty.

Penalty for obstructing an excise search was treated as valid where the warrant, though said to misidentify the appellants, was read as authorising search of the occupied premises and did not undermine the search authority. The record was also said to prove wilful resistance: the panchanama noted continued obstruction, threats to officers, and stoppage only after reinforcement arrived, while the witness account was accepted despite delay. On that basis, the commentary records that the search obstruction penalty was upheld and no interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the penalty imposed for obstructing the search of excise at the premises was unsustainable on the ground that the initial search warrant did not correctly identify the appellants; (ii) whether the evidence on record established wilful resistance to the search.

Issue (i): Whether the penalty imposed for obstructing the search of excise officers at the premises was unsustainable on the ground that the initial search warrant did not correctly identify the appellants.

Analysis: The premises covered by the warrant were in the occupation of the appellants, and the reference in the warrant was treated as a reference to the excisable goods rather than a defect going to the legality of the authorisation. The explanation that the appellants were justified in refusing the search was therefore not accepted.

Conclusion: The penalty was not held to be invalid on this ground, and the finding was against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the evidence on record established wilful resistance to the search.

Analysis: The panchanama recorded continuing resistance, threats against the officers, and cessation only after reinforcement arrived. The lapse of time did not discredit the witness's recollection of the incident, and the witness statement was treated as supporting the department's version.

Conclusion: Wilful obstruction of the search was proved, and the penalty was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals did not merit interference and were dismissed, with the deceased appellant's proceeding abating.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty for obstructing a lawful search will be sustained where the record shows continued resistance and the alleged defect in the warrant does not negate the authority to search the premises.

---