Judgment 1. This is an appeal by the State of Bihar against the appellate order of acquittal recorded in favour of the two respondents who had been convicted by the learned trying Magistrate as follows. Ram Nihora Choudhary (Respondent No. 1) was convicted under sections 379 and 332, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced, on the first count, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and, on the second count, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- (or to suffer two months rigorous imprisonment more in default). Mauji Lal Sharma (Respondent No. 2) was convicted under section 353, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- (or to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months more, in default). Both the respondents were further convicted under section 342 of the Code but no separate punishment was imposed upon them thereunder. 2. The prosecution case, which was accepted by the learned trying Magistrate and which has not been doubted or disbelieved by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was that on receipt of certain secret information that some illegal transactions in tobacco were to take place in the godown of respondent Mauji Lal in village Suratpur, Inspector Surjeet Singh (P.W. 1) of the Central Excise Department visited the said godown in the morning of the 17th December, 1961 along with two sepoys (P. Ws. 3 and 4). Both the respondents were present in the godown, where there were also 12 or 15 other unknown persons. Two empty bullock-carts were also standing nearby. The Inspector (P.W. 1) demanded the godown registers from respondent Mauji Lal and told him that he wanted to check his godown by making a physical verification. This enraged Mauji Lal who refused to produce the registers or to allow inspection of the godown. Thereupon the Inspector (P.W. 1) took out his parker fountain-pen with a view to send written information to the police station for assistance. As soon as he took out his pen, it was snatched away by respondent Ram Nihora. Therefter the Inspector and his sepoys were surrounded by 10 or 15 men who were standing there. At that stage Ram Nihora gave a stick blow to the Inspector on his back saying "Inspection awa pura hua hai". As soon as he took out his pen, it was snatched away by respondent Ram Nihora. Therefter the Inspector and his sepoys were surrounded by 10 or 15 men who were standing there. At that stage Ram Nihora gave a stick blow to the Inspector on his back saying "Inspection awa pura hua hai". The Inspector was also compelled to write on a chit of paper that no incident had happened on the date of the occurrence. 3. After the occurrence, the Inspector (P.W. 1) sent a written report (Ex. 1) to the Officer-in-charge of Mahua police station which was at a distance of about two miles. A first information report was accordingly drawn up at 11.45 a. m. on the same day. The Police investigation took place and the two accused persons were put on trial. 4. The Prosecution case was supported in Court by the Inspector (P.W. 1) and his two sepoys (P.Ws. 3 and 4), besides a villager (P.W. 2) and a Chaukidar (P.W. 5). 5. The defence taken was that there was no occurrence at all and the respondents had been falsely implicated on account of bitter feelings between them and the Deputy Superintendent and the Inspector of Cential Excise. The defence, however, was not substantiated, except that it was shown that the respondents did not have good feelings against the Central Excise authorities. 6. The ground upon which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has recorded the acquittal of the respondents is mainly that the rules relating to search contained in the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, and the rules made thereunder were not observed, and as such the search was wholly illegal, having regard to the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Rahman. (A.I.R. 1960 Supreme Court 210), wherein it has been held that the provisions of Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have to be followed in the matter of conducting searches under Rule 201 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. I am, however, of the opinion that the learned Judge has entirely misdirected himself in this matter. The evidence of P.W. 1 and the other prosecution witnesses does not at all indicate that it was a case of search. I am, however, of the opinion that the learned Judge has entirely misdirected himself in this matter. The evidence of P.W. 1 and the other prosecution witnesses does not at all indicate that it was a case of search. The evidence shows that the Inspector (P.W. 1) wanted to inspect the warehouse and to make a physical verification of the godown in order to satisfy himself as to the truth or the otherwise of the information which he had received. Even without having to be satisfied about a matter like this, it was obviously within the powers of the Inspector (P.W. 1) to inspect the warehouse or the godown lying within his jmisdiction. He had asked for the registers to enable him to check up the godown to which he had desired access. That did not mean that he wanted to make a search. From the very nature of things, search is conducted where there is suspicion about existence of some incriminating article in regard to which some offence is alleged to have been committed. For example, there may be search for the presence of a dead body or blood- stained articles of similar other kinds of things associated with the commission of an offence. Inspection of a godown is not a search by itself, and inspection by a Central Excise Inspector is persmissible even if no offence has been committed, and such inspection of a godown is the ordinary part of the duties of an Inspector like P.W. 1. To inspection of this nature, there can be no question of following the provisions contained in Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the learned Judge was quite wrong in rejecting the entire prosecution case on the footing that the alleged search was illegal. 7. One of the convictions was for theft of a Parker fountain-pen under Section 379, Indian Penal Code. This conviction could not possibly have been upset even upon the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Besides, the manner in which P.W. 1 had been assaulted, as set out above, could not have been an act of justification, even if the said view taken by the learned judge were correct. The learned trying Magistrate has elaborately discussed the evidence of their evidence is quite sound. Besides, the manner in which P.W. 1 had been assaulted, as set out above, could not have been an act of justification, even if the said view taken by the learned judge were correct. The learned trying Magistrate has elaborately discussed the evidence of their evidence is quite sound. I am, therefore, of the opinion that both the respondents were wrongly acquitted by the learned Addtional Sessions Judge in appeal. 8. In the result, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside and that of the trying Magistrate is restored and the appeal is accordingly allowed.