Bapna, J.—This is an appeal by the State against the order of acquittal of Rehman respondent on a charge under sec. 353 of the Indian Penal Code by the Munsif Magistrate, Hindaun by order of 4th of August, 1956. 2. The case for the prosecution is that Mr. Sri Kishen Ahluwalia Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise having headquarter at Bharatpur went on the 7th of September, 1953 to village Kot. He received information that Sullad and his son Rehman had cultivated tobacco but had not paid the excise duty thereon. On the 9th of September, 1955, he decided to go to the house of Rehman and after 2 P. M. went to his house and asked him to show his tobacco. Rehman replied that he had some tobacco with him but he would not show it. Shri Ahluwalia, Deputy Superintendent, was accompanied by Mr. Nand Kishore Maheshwari, Inspector Central Excise, Ramchand Sepoy, Nopa Chokidar and two Motbirs, Kapurchand and Phulchand. Shri Ahluwalia decided to take the search of the house of Rehman, but Dhamman and Rehman obstructed the making of the search and pushed aside Ramchand and Shri Ahluwalia. Shri Ahluwalia fell down and as a result received two injuries, one abrasion and the other a contused wound on his leg. A report was made at the Police Station, Mahuwa on the same day at 6 P. M. 3. Rehman and Dhamman were prosecuted. Dhamman was discharged and Rehman was convicted under sec. 353, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment by the learned Munsif Magistrate, Hindaun on the 2nd of June, 1953. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge was of opinion that search had not been proved to have been made in accordance with the provision of sec. 165, Criminal Procedure Code which were applicable in view of sec. 18 of the Central Excise and Salts Act (No. I of 1944). It was pointed out that there was no evidence to show that the officer had recorded his reasons in writing before attempting to search the place. He set aside the conviction and remanded the case for a fresh enquiry. After remand a document Ex. P-5 was produced by Sri Ahluwalia as a record of reasons before the search was attempted and he was recalled for examination. He set aside the conviction and remanded the case for a fresh enquiry. After remand a document Ex. P-5 was produced by Sri Ahluwalia as a record of reasons before the search was attempted and he was recalled for examination. The learned Magistrate did not accept this document to have been drawn up before search and held that the provisions of sec. 165, Criminal Procedure Code had not been complied with. He accordingly acquitted the accused by his judgment dated the 4th August, 1956. 4. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the State and the first ground argued was that it was not obligatory on the excise officers to record reasons before attempting to make a search. It was argued that the powers to make a search were conferred by Central Excise and Salts Act (No. I of 1944) and rules thereunder and as this was a special Act, the restrictions mentioned in sec. 165, Criminal Procedure Code were not applicable. 5. The relevant provisions were carefully considered. Sec. 18 of Act No. 1 of 1944 is to the effect that "all searches made under this Act or any rules made thereunder and all orders made under this Act shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (No. V of 1898) relating respectively to searches and arrests made under that Code". Sec. 37 enables the Central Government to make rules among other things for authorising and regulating inspection of factories and to provide for the taking of samples and for the making of tests of any substance produced therein and for the inspection or search of any place or conveyance used for the production, storage, sale or transport of salt and so far as such inspection and search is essential for the proper levy and collection of the duties imposed by the Act of any excisable goods. R. 201 authorises the Central Government to empower any officers of the department under its control to enter and search at any time by day or by night any land, building, enclosed place, premises, vessel, conveyance, or other place upon or in which he has reason to believe that excisable goods, salt petre or splints or veneers for the manufacture of matches are processed, sorted, stored, manufactured or carried in contravention of the provisions of the Act or these rules and in case of resistance break open any door and remove any other obstacle to his entry upon or into and search of such land, building, enclosed place, premises, vessel, conveyance, or other place. R. 202 empowers the officer to require any person who has the immediate possession, control, or use of any land, building, enclosed place, premises, vessel, conveyance or other place which he desires to search under these rules or of any excisable goods to open or allow access to inspect or examine such place or conveyance. Sub-clause 2 says that if such person fails to comply with any of such requirement such officer may cause anything to be done which he may deem necessary in order to exercise his powers under these rules in a proper manner and the cost incurred in this behalf paid to such officer shall be recoverable from the said person as an arrear of land revenue. The Central Excise Manual at page 259 says that an officer not inferior in rank to an Inspector is authorised to exercise power with reference to rules 201 and 202. 6. It is evident from the perusal of these rules and notification that Shri Ahluwalia was authorised to demand access to a place supposes to contain excisable goods (tobacco being one of them). The effect of sec. 18 is however to make the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code relating to search applicable. The provisions of the Code in relation to searches are be found firstly in secs. 96 to 99 and 101 to 105. These provisions are applicable when the search is made under orders or direction of a court. The other provisions in respect of search are contained in secs.165 and 166 of the Code when the search is to be made by an officer in charge of the police station. 96 to 99 and 101 to 105. These provisions are applicable when the search is made under orders or direction of a court. The other provisions in respect of search are contained in secs.165 and 166 of the Code when the search is to be made by an officer in charge of the police station. The provisions of Chapter VII are not directly applicable because the search is not made under any instructions of a Magistrate. The excise officers are empowered in their own right to make a search and that power would be analogous to that of a police officer empowered to search himself. By virtue of sec. 18 of the Central Excise and Salts Act, sec. 165 of the Code authorising a police officer to make a search after certain formalities becomes applicable. 7. The important steps to be taken under sec. 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code are:— (1) As mentioned in sub-clause (1) that the officer must have reasonable grounds for believing that anything necessary for the purpose of an investigation in hand may be found in any place within the limits of his jurisdiction and that such thing cannot, in his opinion, be otherwise obtained without undue delay. (2) The Officer is required to record in writing the grounds of his belief and to specify in such writing so far as possible the thing for which search is to be made. (3) He can thereafter search or cause search to be made within the limits of his jurisdiction. The section also lays down that the officer proceeding under the provisions of sub-clause (1) shall if practicable conduct the search in person Another direction is contained in sub-clause(4) that the provisions contained in secs. 102 and 103 become applicable. It is not necessary to refer to provisions in secs. 102 and 103 for in the present case their compliance has not been challenged. The final direction in sec. 165 is that copies of the record of search shall be sent to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence and the owner or occupier of place searched shall on application be furnished with a copy of the same by the Magistrate. The final direction in sec. 165 is that copies of the record of search shall be sent to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence and the owner or occupier of place searched shall on application be furnished with a copy of the same by the Magistrate. R. 201 which confers the power to search any place also lays down that the officer must have reason to believe that excisable goods are processed, sorted, stored etc., in contravention of the Act or the Rules. The applicability of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code having been made by section 18 of the Central Excise and Salt Act brings in the further requirement of stating the grounds of the belief and the specification of the article to be searched to be recorded in writing. If the provisions of law are not so construed, sec. 18 of the Central Excise and Salt Act would become nugatory. 8. We have, therefore, to see whether the officer had recorded his reasons before proceeding to make the search. The only evidence in this regard is of Shri Kishen Ahluwalia after remand when he was recalled. He said that he came to know from the Gasht Girdawari of the Patwari that the accused had cultivated tobacco. He wanted to see the stock of tobacco in order to find out whether the assessment was correctly made or not. The accused Rehman declined to show the stock of the tobacco whereupon he decided to make a search. Before making the search, he recorded the reasons in writing and this record was Ex. P-5 produced in court after remand. This document is as follows:— "Whereas, it is necessary to verify the produce of Shri Hansa S/o Brikhban and of Rehman s/o Sullad in order to be definite about the correct assessment of the growercurers and since these persons have refused to get their tobacco examined, I hereby decide to make an entry into their premises and search for the tobacco reported to be lying therein. Shri Phoolchand and Kapoor Chand have been summoned for this purpose. I also intend to seize the recovered goods for breach of C. E. Rules 1944. Recorded by me. Sd/- K. Ahluwalia, 9.9.56 Dy. Supdt." This document complies with the requirements of law and the statement of Shri Kishen Ahluwalia purports to prove it. Shri Phoolchand and Kapoor Chand have been summoned for this purpose. I also intend to seize the recovered goods for breach of C. E. Rules 1944. Recorded by me. Sd/- K. Ahluwalia, 9.9.56 Dy. Supdt." This document complies with the requirements of law and the statement of Shri Kishen Ahluwalia purports to prove it. The previous statement of Shri Ahluwalia and the statements of other witnesses however, give a different version and the execution of this document at the proper time cannot be held to have been satisfactorily proved. 9. Phulchand P.W. 3 stated that he was sent for by the Deputy Superintendent in order to accompany him for searching the house of Rehman. In cross-examination he stated that he was sent for under a letter and he accompanied the said officer from the bazar. At first Hasna was searched and after that search was over, Rehman was told that he would have to give a search. In examination in chief, the witness also said that on reaching the house of Rehman.. Shri Ahluwalia told him that the search of Rehman would be taken. Rehman however, refused to permit the search and pushed aside the Sepoy and the Deputy Superintendent. He makes it clear in cross-examination that as soon as the Deputy Superintendent told Rehman that his search would be taken; he ordered the Sepoy to go in, but the latter was prevented. 10. Kapoorchand P. W. 9 another witness said that he was asked by the Inspector to accompany him in order to take the search of Hasna. After having made the search of Hasna, the Inspector told the witness that the house of Sullad is also to be searched as there are arrears of tax of tobacco. Sullad was not present but his son Rehman was there. He was told by the Inspector that the search is to be taken, but Rehman declined to give the search. The Inspector insisted on taking the search and wanted to proceed but he was pushed away. 11. Nandkishore P.W.7 Inspector stated that Rehman and Dhamman were called in connection with the recovery of dues on tobacco but they did not turn up, whereupon on the 9th of September, they proceeded to the house of these persons accompanied by Phulchand and Kapoorchand for completing and verifying the annual return and assessing the tobacco. 11. Nandkishore P.W.7 Inspector stated that Rehman and Dhamman were called in connection with the recovery of dues on tobacco but they did not turn up, whereupon on the 9th of September, they proceeded to the house of these persons accompanied by Phulchand and Kapoorchand for completing and verifying the annual return and assessing the tobacco. The officers asked them to show the tobacco and on their refusal proceeded towards the house for taking the search, whereupon they were obstructed and pushed away. 12. Ramchandra, P. W. 6, peon, stated that he accompanied the officers for the purpose of taking the search of Rehman. The Deputy Superintendent told the accused that a search would be made, but Rehman declined to give the search, whereupon, the witness was asked to proceed or making the search. but he was pushed. The Deputy Superintendent and the Inspector were similarly dealt with. 13. All these witnesses produced in support of the prosecution case, therefore, state events in the order in which they happened but omitted the fact of the Deputy Superintendent taking out his pen and paper and jotting down the reasons for which the search was required to be made. In the circumstances the Magistrate was not wrong in the coming to the conclusion that the recording of reasons before proceeding to take a search as required by sec. 165 had not been satisfactorily proved to have been complied with. It may be mentioned that the Deputy superintendent maintains a diary of the events and it was conceded by the learned Assistant Government Advocate that the fact of recording of reasons is not mentioned therein. It may be that the kind of document is only a sort of summary of the days work and may not contain any detail of what might take place in respect of each individual tax-payer but on the evidence as it stands it must be held that it has not been proved to the satisfaction of this Court that the reasons were recorded before the excise officers proceeded to take the search. In this view the search attempted to be taken was not in accordance with law and if the accused resisted the search no offence had been committed. The accused has been rightly acquitted. 14. This appeal has got no force and is accordingly dismissed.