THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus REHMAN

Citation: [1960] 1 S.C.R. 991 · Decided: 14-10-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
991 
departmental proceedings that took place against him 
1959 
should have been instituted in the manner provided 
--:- h h 
· th' 
· 
Th 
· 
£ 
· 
h" 
te t" 
M.NaraS1m ac ar 
m 
1s proviso. 
ere 1s no orce m t 1s con n ion 
v. 
because the proviso only comes into force when the 
The state of 
departmental proceedings take place after the officer 
Mysore 
has given up service. It does not apply to a case like 
the present where the departmental proceedings took 
Wam:hoo f. 
place while the appellant was still in service. 
Before we leave this case, we may point out that the 
appellant contended that the Fundamental Rules of 
the Government of India applied to him. This again 
is wrong for what apply to him are the Regulations 
and not th.e Fundamental Rules of the Government of 
India. 
We are therefore of opinion that there is no force 
in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. In the circum-
stances of the -case we pass no order as to costs and 
Court fee. 
Appeal dismissed. 
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v.· 
REHMAN 
(P. B: GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. SuBBA RAo, JJ.) 
Criminal Trial-Search by Excise Officer-Failure to record 
reasons-Search, if illegal-Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, (I of 
r944), s. I4-Central Excise Rules, r944, r. 20I-Code of Criminal 
Procedure, r898, (V of r898), s. r65. 
I959 
October I4 
A Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise, on receiving 
information that the respondent had cultivated tobacco but had 
not paid excise duty thereon, went to search the house of the 
respondent with a view to find out whether he had stored tobacco 
there. The respondent obstructed the making of the search with 
the result that the Deputy Superintendent fell down and was 
injured. The respondent was prosecuted under s. 353, Indian 
Penal Code, but was acquitted on the ground that the search was 
illegal as it was made by the Deputy Superintendent without 
"'--
recording the reasons as required by s. 165, Code of Criminal 
Procedure. The appellant contended that s. 165 of the Code was 
not applicable to a search under the Central Excise and Salt Act. 
Held, that s. 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was 
applicable to such a search also and the search being in contraven-
tion of s. 165 was illegal. Section 18 of the Central Excise and 
I959 
The State of 
Rajasthan 
v. 
Rehman 
992 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] 
Salt Act provided that searches under that Act shall ·be carried 
out in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure. 
An excise officer was authorised to make a search 
only for the investigation of an offence. Such a search approxim-
ated to a search made by a police officer during the course of 
investigation of a cognizable offence, and in both cases the search 
had to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of s. 165 
of the Code. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 39 of 1958. · 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated Septem-
ber 20, 1957, of the Rajasthan High Court Bench, at 
Jaipur, in D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 1956, 
arising out of the judgment and order dated the 
August 4, 1956, of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Hindaun in 
Case No. 313 of 1953, 
R.H. Dhebar, for the appellant. 
The respondent did not appear. 
1959. October 14. Tho Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
Subba Rao J. 
SuBBA RAO J.-This is an appeal by certificate 
granted by the High Court of Judicature for the State 
of Rajasthan, under Art. 134 (l)(c) of the Constitution 
against its judgment dated September 20, 1957, confirm-
ing that of the Munsif-Magistrate, Hinduan, ~cquit­
ting the appellant of the charge under s. 353 of the 
Indian Penal Code. 
The material facts lie in a small compass. The 
Deputy Superintendent of the Central Excise, having 
his head-quarters at Bharatpur, received information 
that one Sulled and his son, Rehman, the respondent 
herein, had cultivated tobacco but had not paid the 
excise duty payable thereon. On September 9, 1953, 
the Deputy Superintendent, accomyanied by an 
Inspector of Central Excise, a sepoy, a chowkidar and 
two motbirs, went to the house of Rehman at 2 p.m., 
with a view to search his house to find out whether 
he had stored tobacco there. When they declared 
their intention to do so, the respondent and one 
Dhamman, it is alleged, obstructed the making of the 
I• 
-1 
s.c.it. 
SUPR:ffiME COURT REPORTS 
993 
search ; with the result that the Duputy Superintend-
ent fell down and received

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.