https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41797 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. en-us Thu, 16 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jun 2010 11:18:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41797 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 16 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41797