Criminal Appeal No 10 of 1974
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 22 11 1973 of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Appeal No 22173 section section Javali and B P Singh for the Appellant
M Veerappa and J R Dass for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI J
In this appeal by Special Leave the appellant has been convicted under section 34 of the Mysore Excise Act and sentenced to three months  rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 100 for being in possession of 48 bottles of liquor which were recovered from a car which was being driven by the appellant
Mr Javali appearing for the appellant has raised a short point before us
He has submitted that the Inspector of Excise who searched the car along with the panchas had no jurisdiction to do so because he did so without complying with 1132 the provisions of section 54 of the Excise Act
In our opinion the contention is well founded and must prevail Section 53 runs thus If a Magistrate upon information and after such inquiry if any as he thinks necessary has reasons to believe that an offence under section 32 section 33 section 34 section 36 or section 37 has been is being or is likely to be committed he may issue a warrant a for the search of any place in which he has reason to believe that any intoxicant still utensil implement apparatus or materials which are used for the commission of such offence or in respect of which such has been is being or is likely to be committed are kept or concealed and b for the arrest of any person whom he has reason to believe to have been to be or to be likely to be engaged in the commission of any such offence
 Thus this section relates to a contingency where the Statute enjoins that any inspector before searching a place must obtain a warrant from the magistrate
Section 54 is a special provision which arises in urgent cases where it may not be possible for the officer concerned to get a warrant from the Magistrate
Section 54 runs thus Whenever the Excise Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner or any police officer not below the rank of an officer uncharge of a police station or any Excise Officer not below such rank as may be prescribed has reason to believe that an offence under section 32 section 33 section 34 section 36 or section 37 has been is being or is likely to be committed and that a search warrant cannot be obtained without affording the offender an opportunity of escape or of concealing evidence of the offence he may after recording the grounds of his belief a at any time by day or by night enter and search any place and seize anything found therein which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and b detain and search and if he thinks proper arrest any person found in such place whom he has reason to believe to be guilty of such offence as aforesaid
 In the instant case it is admitted that the inspector who searched the car of the appellant had not made any record of any ground on the basis 1133 of which he had a reasonable belief that an offence under the Act was being committed before proceeding to search the car and thus the provisions of section 54 were not at all complied with
This therefore renders the entire search without jurisdiction and as a logical corollary vitiates the conviction
We feel that both sections 53 and 54 contain valuable safeguards for the liberty of the citizen in order to protect them from ill founded or frivolous prosecution or harassment
The point was taken before the High Court which appears to have brushed aside this legal lacuna without making any real attempt to analyses the effect of the provisions of section 53 and 54
The High Court observed that these two sections were wholly irrelavant
With due respect we are unable to approve of such a cryptic approach to a legal question which is of far reaching consequences
It was however suggested that the word place would not include the car but the definition of the word place under the Act clearly includes vehicle which would include a car
Thus the ground on which the argument of the petitioner has been rejected by the High Court cannot be sustained by us
We are satisfied that there has been a direct non compliance of the provisions of section 54 which renders the search completely without jurisdiction
In this view of the matter the appeal is allowed the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges framed against him
MR Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant was convicted under section 34 of the Mysore Excise Act and sentenced to three months RI and a fine of Rs 100 for being in possession of 48 bottles of liquor recovered from the car being driven by him
It was contended that the provisions of section 54 had not been complied with and the search was made without jurisdiction
Allowing the appeal the Court  HELD 1
The Inspector who searched the car of the appellant had not made any record of any ground on the basis of which he had a reasonable belief that an offence under the Act was being committed before proceeding to search the car and thus the provisions of section 54 were not at all complied with thereby rendering the entire search without jurisdiction and as a logical corollary vitiating the conviction
1132H 1133A B 2
Both Sections 53 and 54 contain valuable safeguards for the liberty of the citizen in order to protect them from ill founded or frivolous prosecution or harassment
1133B