ORDER D.D. Seth, J. - The facts of this revision are that the Applicant Prayag Singh belonged to XI Battalion PAC and was posted at Sitapur and was living in the company barracks. On 6-5-1966 in the morning at about 11 P.M. his Platoon Commander Sri Qamar Husain was informed that the Applicant had some unlicensed live cartridges in his box and was intending to remove them the same day. Thereupon Sri Qamar Husain informed Company Commander of the Battalion Sri Sita Ram and the Company Commander along with Sri Qamar Husain, Platoon Commander, Sita Ram Singh Head Constable and Sri Raghunath Singh Head Constable went to the barracks where the Applicant lived and got his box opened and searched. They found 55 rounds of live cartridges of 303 Bore Rifle and 8 charger clips in a box belonging to the Applicant. The box was locked and the keys were provided by the Applicant who opened the box himself. Thereupon a recovery memo Ex. Ka 1 was prepared by the Platoon Commander and the cartridges and the charger clips were sealed. The Applicant was then taken along with the articles to the Assistant Commandant who was officiating as Commandant on that day. The Assistant Commandant interrogated the Applicant and Sri Ram Kumar Singh Adjutant sent the recovery memo Ex. Ka 1 along with the recovered articles to the Station Officer, Incharge Police Station Kotwali, Sitapur where the police authorities registered a case against the Applicant and started investigation. The investigation was done by Sri Gaya Pd. Pandey Sub Inspector but later on the case was referred to the C.I.D. and further investigation was carried on by Sri Daya Snanker Sharma, C.I.D. Inspector who submitted a chargesheet against the Applicant. 2. The Applicant den ed the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded not guilty. According to him the Company Commander Sri Sita Ram had a buffalo and four or five days before the present occurrence the Applicant was, asked by the Company Commander to bring grass for the buffalo which the Applicant refused to do and that was why, according to the Applicant, he was, implicated falsely. The Applicant also denied that any recovery was made from his box or that any recovery memo was prepared in his presence. He, however, admitted his signatures on the recovery memo Ex. The Applicant also denied that any recovery was made from his box or that any recovery memo was prepared in his presence. He, however, admitted his signatures on the recovery memo Ex. Ka 1 but stated that he was made to sign a blank paper and did not know on what paper he was putting his signatures at. 3. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined PW 1 Sri Sita Ram, Company Commander, PW 2 Sri Qamar Hussain Platoon Commander and PW 3 Sri Sita Ram Singh Head Constable as eye witnesses of the occurrence. The prosecution also examined Sri Amin Husain (PW 4) Head Constable as a formal witness and Sri Gaya Prasad Pandey (PW5) who had investigated the case in the beginning and Sri Daya Shanker Sharma C.I.D. Inspector as PW 6. 4. Believing the prosecution case the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate convicted the Applicant u/s 25(a) of the Arms Act arid sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment under that section. Against his conviction the Applicant went up in appeal which was dismissed by the learned 1st Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Sitapur and it is against this order that the present revision has been filed in this Court. 51 I have heard Sri C.S. Sarah, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Sri M.M. Chaturvedi, the Learned Counsel appearing for the State. The sole contention of Sri C.S. Saran is that the Company Commander was not authorised to carry out the search of the box belonging to the Applicant and therefore, the search was illegal and hence the conviction of the Applicant was also illegal. 6. The sole contention of Sri C.S. Saran is that the Company Commander was not authorised to carry out the search of the box belonging to the Applicant and therefore, the search was illegal and hence the conviction of the Applicant was also illegal. 6. Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with search by police officers and says: Whenever an officer in charge of a police station or a police-officer making an investigation has reasonable grounds for believing that anything necessary for the purposes of an investigation into any offence which he is authorised to investigate may be found in any place within the limits of the police station of which he is in charge, or to which he is attached and that such thing cannot in his opinion be other wise obtained without undue delay, such officer, may after recording in writing the grounds of his belief and specifying in such writing, so far as possible, the thing for which search is to be made, search, or cause search to be made, for such thing in any place within the limits of such station. According to Section 165, therefore, only an officer in charge of police station or a police officer making an investigation could search the belongings of the Applicant. Sri Sita Ram Company Commander was a member of the Provincial Armed Constabulary and was not an officer incharge of a police station or a police officer making an investigation within the meaning of Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the instant case there is no evidence on record to show that Sita Ram, was in charge of a police station or was the officer investigating the case against the Applicant. Sri Sita Ram, therefore, could not carry out the search of the belongings of the Applicant u/s 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Section 551 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with powers of superior officers of police and says: Police-officers superior in rank to an officer incharge of a police station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station. 8. 7. Section 551 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with powers of superior officers of police and says: Police-officers superior in rank to an officer incharge of a police station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station. 8. The question, therefore, is whether Sita Ram as a Company Commander of the P.A.C. was a person superior to the police officer in charge of a police station or a police officer making an investigation within the meaning of that expression used in Sections 165 and 551, Code of Criminal Procedure. This matter is obviously governed by the Police Regulations as there is nothing in the Provincial Armed Constabulary Act that a Company Commander of the P.A.C. is superior in rank to a police-officer in charge of a police station or a police officer investigating a case. Ch. I contained in Part I of Police Regulations deals with powers and duties of officers and names the superior officers and they are Inspector-General of Police, Deputy Inspector General, Assistant to the Inspector-General, Government Railway Police, Commissioner, District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police and Assistant and Deputy Superintendents of Police. It does not say that the Company Commander of a Battalion of the P.A.C. is a police officer superior in rank to a police officer incharge of a police station or a police officer investigating a case. 9. It must, therefore, be held that Sri Sita Ram, the Company, Commander, who carried out the search of the belongings of the Applicant, was not authorised by law to carry out that search and that being the position the conviction of the Applicant u/s 25(a), Arms Act was illegal. 10. For the reasons mentioned above I allow this revision and set aside the conviction and sentence of the Applicant u/s 25(a) of the Arms Act. The Applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.