Keywords: Illegal Search, Excise Officer, Section 165 CrPC, Central Excise and Salt Act, Procedural Safeguards

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: The State of Rajasthan v. Rehman
ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 1958
iii) Judgement Date: 14 October 1959
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar and Justice K. Subba Rao
vi) Author: Justice K. Subba Rao
vii) Citation: (1960) 1 SCR 991
viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 165, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

• Section 18, Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944

• Rule 201, Central Excise Rules, 1944

• Section 353, Indian Penal Code, 1860

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any): None

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Criminal Law, Administrative Law, Constitutional Law (Procedural Due Process), Taxation Law (Excise)

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case arose from a search operation led by a Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise against the respondent, Rehman, for alleged illegal storage of tobacco cultivated without payment of excise duty. The Excise Officer, acting under Rule 201 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, attempted a house search without recording reasons as mandated under Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The respondent obstructed the search, resulting in injury to the officer. He was prosecuted under Section 353 IPC for assault or criminal force against a public servant. Both the Munsif-Magistrate and the High Court held the search illegal and acquitted the respondent. The State challenged the acquittal in the Supreme Court, which had to determine the legality of the search and the implications of procedural lapses by the excise authorities.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise, based in Bharatpur, received intelligence that Rehman and his father were cultivating tobacco and evading excise duties. On 9 September 1953, the officer, accompanied by subordinates and witnesses, visited Rehman’s residence at 2 PM intending to conduct a search. When the officer attempted the search, Rehman and another person, Dhamman, obstructed him. The Deputy Superintendent was injured during this resistance. A criminal case was initiated against both, but only Rehman was convicted by the trial court under Section 353 IPC. On appeal, the Sessions Court found that the search did not comply with Section 165 CrPC and remanded the case. Upon rehearing, the Magistrate acquitted Rehman, and the Rajasthan High Court upheld this. The State appealed to the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to searches conducted by Excise Officers under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944?

ii) Whether the failure to record reasons for the search renders the search illegal?

iii) Whether obstruction to such a procedurally irregular or illegal search amounts to an offence under Section 353 of the IPC?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The appellant-State argued that Section 165 CrPC applies only to police officers during investigation of cognizable offences. They claimed that the Excise Officer was acting under Rule 201 of the Central Excise Rules, a special procedure unrelated to criminal investigation. Hence, procedural compliance under Section 165 was unnecessary.

ii) They contended that even if Section 165 applied, the failure to record reasons was a procedural irregularity, not one that vitiated the search. Thus, the obstruction by the respondent amounted to an offence under Section 353 IPC.

iii) The State relied on the power given under Section 18 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, which permits search operations in line with the CrPC but argued it should be read in a flexible manner considering the statutory objectives of the Excise Act.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The respondent argued that Section 165 of the CrPC applied squarely to the search operation because it was investigative in nature. Since the Excise Officer did not record reasons before searching, the search was illegal.

ii) The defence relied on the language of Section 18 of the Excise Act, which mandated compliance with CrPC provisions. The respondent asserted that once the search was illegal, his resistance could not attract Section 353 IPC.

iii) The respondent also submitted that procedural safeguards under Section 165 are mandatory and not merely directory. The rule of law demands adherence to legal procedure by government officers, especially when it encroaches upon private property and liberty.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898: It provides a framework for conducting searches during investigations by police officers, requiring written reasons and specific procedures to prevent abuse.

ii) Section 18 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944: States that all searches under the Act must comply with CrPC provisions regarding search procedures.

iii) Rule 201 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944: Authorises certain officers to search places suspected of storing excisable goods in violation of the Act.

iv) Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code: Punishes assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging duties.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Court held that Section 165 CrPC is applicable to searches conducted under Rule 201 when such searches aim at investigating a suspected offence. The Deputy Superintendent was acting in an investigative capacity; thus, compliance with Section 165 CrPC was mandatory.

ii) Since the officer failed to record the reasons for the search as required under Section 165, the search was illegal. Consequently, resistance to such an illegal act did not constitute an offence under Section 353 IPC.

iii) The Court found no distinction between the search powers of excise officers and police officers when both operate in the course of an investigation. This interpretation ensures procedural fairness and constitutional validity.

b. OBITER DICTA 

i) The Court remarked that “search is a process exceedingly arbitrary in character” and hence must be exercised with strict adherence to statutory safeguards.

ii) The Court emphasized that statutory power must not override procedural legality, especially when it relates to potential criminal liability.

c. GUIDELINES 

i) Searches conducted under Rule 201 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 must follow procedures under Section 165 CrPC.

ii) Excise officers, when acting in an investigative capacity, are bound by procedural norms under the CrPC.

iii) Recording of reasons prior to search is mandatory and not a procedural formality.

iv) Non-compliance with search procedures makes the search illegal and any obstruction to it non-punishable under Section 353 IPC.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i) The State of Rajasthan v. Rehman, (1960) 1 SCR 991
ii) Link to Section 165 CrPC
iii) Link to Section 18, Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944
iv) Link to Rule 201, Central Excise Rules, 1944
v) Link to Section 353 IPC

b. Important Statutes Referred

i) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 165
ii) Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, Section 18
iii) Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 201
iv) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 353