GOSWAMI, J.:- This Criminal Revi­sion is directed against the judgment of conviction under Section 5 (a) of the Assam Opium Prohibition Act (Assam Act XXII of 1947), hereinafter called the "Assam Act', and the sentence of rigo­rous imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for another two months. This in the modified sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal in place of the earlier sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default rigorous imprison­ment for two months, passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sibsagar in the original trial. 2. The facts are very brief. The Excise Inspector of Sonari accompanied by the Assistant Excise Inspector and some constables searched the house of the petitioner, hereinafter called the ac­cused, on 13th October, 1963 and reco­vered from inside his dwelling house one "Tema" containing six tolas of opium. The opium was seized by the Excise Ins­pector and the accused was arrested. He was produced before a Magistrate on the following day. One witness was exa­mined by the prosecution on that day and on his evidence a charge under Section 5 (a) of the Assam Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded guilty. Even in his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he admitted that the opium was found in his possession and that he had kept it with him for sale. The learned Magistrate accordingly convicted the accused on his plea of guilty under Sec. 5 (a) of the Assam Act and sentenc­ed as above. In appeal, the learned Ses­sions Judge only considered the question of severity of the sentence and reduced the same as earlier noticed. 3. This revision application came up before me while sitting singly and having regard to the question of law raised regarding the illegality of the whole trial, I referred the matter to a Division Bench, and that is how it has come before us now. 4. It is contended on behalf of the accused that the entire trial was vitiated as the learned Magistrate failed to comp­ly with the mandatory provisions of Sec­tion 251 (a) of the Code of Criminal Pro­cedure under which it is obligatory for the Magistrate to follow the procedure laid down under Section 251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. 4. It is contended on behalf of the accused that the entire trial was vitiated as the learned Magistrate failed to comp­ly with the mandatory provisions of Sec­tion 251 (a) of the Code of Criminal Pro­cedure under which it is obligatory for the Magistrate to follow the procedure laid down under Section 251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. It is apparent that in this case the learned Magistrate followed the proce­dure laid down under Section 251 (b) and consequently the procedure in con­formity with the provisions of Sec. 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sec­tion 251 of the Code of Criminal Proce­dure reads as follows: "251. In the trial of warrant-cases by Magistrates, the Magistrate shall,- (a) in any case instituted on a police report, follow the procedure specified in Section 251-A; and (b) in any other case, follow the pro­cedure specified in the other provisions of this Chapter." Section 251-A may also be set out: "251-A. Procedure to be adopted In cases instituted on police report. (1) When, in any case instituted on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate at the com­mencement of the trial, such Magistrate shall satisfy himself that the documents referred to in Section 173 have been furnished to the accused, and if he finds that the accused has not been furnished with such documents or any of them, he shall cause them to be so furnished. (2) If, upon consideration of all the documents referred to in Section 173, and making such examination, if any of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecu­tion and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be ground­less, he shall discharge him. (3) If, upon such documents being considered, such examination, if any, be­ing made and the prosecution and the ac­cused being given an opportunity of be­ing heard, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try, and which, in his opinion, could be adequate­ly punished by him, he shall frame i» writing a charge against the accused. (4) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused and he shall be asked whether he is guilty or claims to be tried. (4) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused and he shall be asked whether he is guilty or claims to be tried. (5) If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the plea and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon. * * * * * Section 252 also should be set out: "252. (1) In any case instituted other­wise than on a police report, when the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, such Magistrate shall proceed to hear the complainant (if any) and take all such evidence as may be pro­duced in support of the prosecution: Provided that the Magistrate shall not be bound to hear any person as complai­nant in any case in which the complaint has been made by a Court. * * * * * Under Section 254 of the Code of Crimi­nal Procedure, charge is framed when an offence appears to be proved after re­cording of evidence in accordance with Section 252 of the Code of Criminal Pro­cedure. 6. The offence charged Is under Sec­tion 5 (a) of the Assam Act and is a cog­nizable offence. The procedure which is to be followed in a trial of this offence is also that of the warrant procedure. The only point therefore to be consider­ed is whether the offences reported by Excise Officers under various sections of the Assam Act are to be treated as offences instituted on a police report. Chapter VTI of the Assam Act describes the procedure, namely. Power to issue warrants (Section 19), Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without war­rant (Section 20) and Power of seizure and arrest in public places (Section 21). Section 22 may be noticed: "22. Mode of executing warrants and of making searches and arrests. - The pro­visions of the Code of Criminal Proce­dure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), shall, in so far as they are applicable, apply to the execution of warrants and making of searches and arrests under this Act." Section 24 provides for report of arrest and seizure by the officer making arrest or seizure to his immediate official supe­rior within 24 hours. Section 25 pres­cribes for the disposal of persons arrested and articles seized. Section 26 may be quoted: "26. Power to invest Excise Officers. Section 25 pres­cribes for the disposal of persons arrested and articles seized. Section 26 may be quoted: "26. Power to invest Excise Officers. - The State Government may invest any officer of the Excise Department, not be­low the rank of Sub-Inspector, with the powers of an officer-in-charge of a Police Station for the investigation of offences under this Act." Section 27 confers jurisdiction on different Magistrates to try offences and pass appropriate sentences authorised by the Act While dealing with the provi­sions for security from habitual offenders to desist from committing offences, cer­tain procedure has been laid down under Section 11, and under Section 11 (6) (ii) it is provided that the enquiry shall be made as nearly as may be practicable according to the procedure prescribed for the trial of warrant cases in the Crimi­nal Procedure Code, 1898. except that no charge need be framed. While dealing with externment of habitual smugglers under Chapter VI, under Section 17, the provisions in Chapter V of this Act, in so far as they are applicable, have been made to apply to all proceedings under Section 16. It appears, therefore, that in express terms the procedure laid down under the warrant procedure has been provided for only in respect of enquiry regarding the security and externment proceeding before the Criminal Court. In other cases, the procedure laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code will govern and indeed there is no dispute that the case had to be tried following the warrant procedure. The only contro­versy raised in this case centers round the point whether Section 251A or Sec­tion 252 and the succeeding Sections of the Criminal Procedure Code will apply. 7. For the purpose of applying Sec­tion 251-A of the Code of Criminal Pro­cedure, it must be clear that the case was instituted on a police report. What is the meaning of the expression, 'police report'? Does it mean any police report, that is to say, a report given by a police officer or is it a report which is submit­ted at the conclusion of an investigation under Chapter XIV and hence a report given under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? What is the meaning of the expression, 'police report'? Does it mean any police report, that is to say, a report given by a police officer or is it a report which is submit­ted at the conclusion of an investigation under Chapter XIV and hence a report given under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? The argument on behalf of the accused is that since under Section 26 of the Assam Act the Excise Officers are invested with the powers of an officer-in-charge of a Police Station for the investigation of offences under the Assam Act, they are Police officers for all purposes and are, therefore, re­quired under the law to carry out In­vestigation in accordance with the pro­visions laid down under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Chapter XIV opens with Section 154 regarding information in cognizable cases. Under this section it is incumbent on the officer-in-charge of a police station to reduce to writing any infor­mation relating to the commission of a cognizable offence given orally to him and inter alia also to note the substance thereof in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Govern­ment may prescribe in this behalf. He has also to follow various other proce­dures as laid down under various other sections in this Chapter. For example, under Section 161 (3) the police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an investi­gation, and if he does so, it is obligatory on his part to make a separate record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records. Section 162 pro­vides that no statement made by any per­son to a police officer in the course of investigation, shall, if reduced into writ­ing, be signed by the person making It. The statements recorded under Section 162 can be used only for the purposes mentioned and in conformity with the procedure laid down under this section. Under Section 172, every police officer making an investigation under this Chap­ter shall day by day enter his proceed­ings in the investigation in a diary, set­ting forth the time at which the infor­mation reached him, the time at which he began and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him, and a statement of the circumstances ascer­tained through his investigation. Under this section, a case diary has to be main­tained by the police officer which may be sent for by the Criminal Court. Sec­tion 173 may now be set out: "173. (1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without un­necessary delay, and, as soon as it is completed, the officer-in-charge of the police station shall (a) forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report a report, in the form pres­cribed by the State Government, setting forth the names of the parties, the nature of the information and the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case, and stating whether the ac­cused (if arrested) has been forwarded in custody, or has been released on his bond, and, if so, whether with or without sureties, and (b) communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Govern­ment, the action taken by him to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given. * * * * * (4) After forwarding a report under this section, the officer-in-charge of the police station shall, before the com­mencement of the inquiry or trial, furnish or cause to be furnished to the ac­cused, free of cost, a copy of the report forwarded under sub-section (1) and of the first information report recorded under Section 154 and of all other docu­ments or relevant extracts thereof, on which the prosecution proposes to rely, including the statements and confessions, if any, recorded under Section 164 and the statements recorded under sub-sec­tion (3) of Section 161, of all the persons whom the prosecution' proposes to exa­mine as its witnesses, * * * * * It will, therefore, appear that under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an elaborate procedure is laid down for investigation of offences by the police officer and it is to be seen whether all the procedure laid down in this Chapter has to be complied with by the Excise Officers since they have been invested under Section 26 of the Assam Act with the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station for investiga­tion of the offences under the Assam Opium Prohibition Act. 8. The Assam Opium Prohibition Act is an Act to prohibit consumption (ex­cept for medicinal purposes) and smug­gling of opium in the State. 8. The Assam Opium Prohibition Act is an Act to prohibit consumption (ex­cept for medicinal purposes) and smug­gling of opium in the State. Although it creates certain offences and also pro­vides for punishments, a detailed proce­dure for investigation and trial of these offences is not to be found in the four corners of the Act. In this connection it is convenient to set out Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: "5. (1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, inquir­ed into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained. (2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of in­vestigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences." From a perusal of the above provisions it is clear that offences under the Assam Opium Prohibition Act will have to be investigated according to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure sub­ject to any exceptions or any modifica­tions of the manner or place of investi­gation contained in the Assam Act it­self. We do not find any provision in the Assam Act regarding the procedure of investigation. Such a procedure of investigation under the Opium Act, 1878 is to be found under Sections 20 and 20-A to 20-1 of the Madhya Pradesh amend­ment of Section 20 of the Opium Act, and also Sections 20 and 20-A to 20-J of the West Bengal amendment of Section 20 of the Opium Act. It, therefore, appears that both in West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh, so far as trial of offences under the Opium Act, 1878, is concerned, an elaborate procedure for investigation is laid down and the same has got to be strictly fol­lowed. Under the West Bengal amend­ment, Section 20-J (1) requires a diary to be maintained and under Sec. 20-J (2) the provisions of sub-section (2) of Sec­tion 172 of the Code of Criminal Proce­dure, 1898, are made applicable in the case of every such diary. Section 20-G of the West Bengal Act lays down the jurisdiction of Magistrate on" receipt of report from Excise Officer. Section 20-G of the West Bengal Act lays down the jurisdiction of Magistrate on" receipt of report from Excise Officer. Section 20-G is as if a substitute for Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and ful­fils the requirements laid down under Sections 170 and 173 of the Code of Cri­minal Procedure. In view of these pro­visions in the West Bengal amendment, the Calcutta High Court took the view that the report of an Excise Officer is a Police report, but not so for the purposes of Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is the view which was taken by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Premchand Khetry v. The State, AIR 1958 Cal 213 , where the following passage occurs: "Section 20-G, Opium Act, makes it clear that although an Excise Officer may not be a Police Officer in fact and in law, the report made by him is to be deemed to be a report by a Police Officer for the purposes of taking cognizance of the offence reported. Although Section 20-G of the Opium Act makes an Excise Officer's report of an opium offence a report made by a Police Officer, it does not make it & 'police report' in the special and restrict­ed sense of that term as used in the Code with respect to reports of offences made by the Police." This view was taken in spite of the fact that the West Bengal amendment con­tained provisions almost approximating the procedure laid down under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same view was taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, as will appear from a decision of that Court in the case of Sardar Khan Multan Khan v. State, AIR 1963 Madh Pra 337. The following observations in that decision are appo­site: "Even in view of Section 20-G of the Opium Act, a complaint filed by an Ex­cise Officer under the Opium Act cannot be deemed a case instituted as a case on Police report as contemplated under Sec­tion 251-A, Cr. P. C." This view was taken even though there were provisions in the Madhya Pradesh Act amending Section 20 of the Opium Act prescribing a detailed procedure of investigation similar to the West Bengal amendment and closely resembling the procedure of investigation laid down under Chapter XIV of the Code of Cri­minal Procedure. P. C." This view was taken even though there were provisions in the Madhya Pradesh Act amending Section 20 of the Opium Act prescribing a detailed procedure of investigation similar to the West Bengal amendment and closely resembling the procedure of investigation laid down under Chapter XIV of the Code of Cri­minal Procedure. Both in the Calcutta High Court as well as in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the question had to be considered to the light of the provisions of the res­pective State amendments of the Opium Act whereby a special procedure of in­vestigation has been laid down for the two States. In the Assam Act there is no provision for any kind of investiga­tion of an offence under the said Act. It, therefore, follows that while investigat­ing offences under the Assam Opium Prohibition Act, the officers must when so doing comply with Section 5 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides for investigation of offences against other laws in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. This being the position, provisions of Chapter XIV so far as they are applicable to an inves­tigation of an offence under the Assam Act, must be complied with. In this context an argument was advanced by the State that Chapter XlV cannot be made applicable as the very basis of investiga­tion under Chapter XIV is an informa­tion duly recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words, no investigation under this Chapter, according to the learned Coun­sel for the State, can take place unless an information relating to the commis­sion of a cognizable offence has been re­duced to writing by an officer-in-charge of a police station. The submission is that informations regarding offences under Sec. 5 (a) of the Opium Act, as in the instant case, are bound to be secret informations and if these are required to be written down and the man required to sign these informations and other technical procedure as laid down under Chapter XIV is complied with, lot of delay in investigation will occur defeating the very objects of the Act in trying to de­tect and prevent crimes of this descrip­tion. This argument is sought to be met by Mr. This argument is sought to be met by Mr. Bhattacharjee, the learned Counsel appearing as amicus curiae at the request of the Court, by referring to a decision of the Privy Council in the case of Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 18, It is useful to quote the following passage: "In the case of cognizable offences, re­ceipt and recording of a first information report is not a condition precedent to the setting in motion of a criminal investi­gation. No doubt in the great majority of cases, criminal prosecutions are under­taken as a result of information received and recorded in this way, but there is no reason why the police, if in possession through their own knowledge or by means of credible though informal intelligence which genuinely leads them to the belief that a cognizable offence has been com­mitted, should not of their own motion undertake an investigation into the truth of the matters alleged. Section 157 when directing that a Police Officer,' who has reason to suspect from information or otherwise that an offence which he is empowered to investigate under Section 156 has been committed shall proceed to investigate the facts and circumstances supports this view." It is true that there may be other diffi­culties and embarrassment in the way of the Excise Officers conducting investiga­tion under the Assam Opium Prohibition Act if the provisions laid down under Chapter XIV have to be strictly complied with. The question of embarrassment in investigation, if certain provisions of law are enforced, is a matter of policy which has got to be left to the Legislature and the Courts cannot delve into that region in order to come to a conclusion in law. There is a lacuna in the Assam Opium Prohibition Act making no provisions for investigation of these offences and in absence of any special provisions in that behalf, the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable. On the top of that, S. 26 of the Assam Act provides for investigating officers of the Excise Department not below the rank of Sub-Inspector with powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station for the investigation of the offences under this Act. Section 25 of the Assam Act also may be read in this connection: "25. On the top of that, S. 26 of the Assam Act provides for investigating officers of the Excise Department not below the rank of Sub-Inspector with powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station for the investigation of the offences under this Act. Section 25 of the Assam Act also may be read in this connection: "25. Disposal of persons arrested and articles seized:- (1) Every person arrested and article seized under a warrant issued under Section 19 shall be produced with­in 24 hours of such arrest and sei­zure, exclusive of the time for actual transit, before the authority by whom the warrant was issued. (2) Every person arrested and article seized under Section 20 or 21 shall be produced within 24 hours of such arrest and seizure, exclusive of the time for actual transit, before the officer-in-charge of the nearest Police station or the near­est officer of the Excise Department em­powered under Section 26. (3) The officer to whom any person or article is forwarded this section shall, with all convenient dispatch, take such measures as may be necessary for the disposal, according to law, of such per­son or article." Not having made any provision for the mode of investigation, it is left under Section 25 (3) of the Assam Act to the officer named therein to take such mea­sures as may be necessary according to law. If this is the only guide under the Assam Act to these officers for the pur­pose of carrying out investigation of offences under the said Act, the proce­dure may vary with each officer's under­standing of what the law is. The pro­cedure laid down cannot be left so vague as that In absence of anything to the contrary in the Assam Act, it will be In­cumbent on the officers investigating offences under the Assam Act to follow the procedure laid down for investiga­tion of cognizable offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure and these provisions are to be found in Chapter XIV of the Code. Whatever justification there may be for holding that the report of an Excise Officer under the West Ben­gal and the Madhya Pradesh Acts is not a police report as contemplated under Section 251-A, as the same has not been submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the conclusion of an investigation under Chapter XTV of the Code but under Section 20-G of the Opium Act the said reasoning per would not convert an Excise Officer's report of an offence under the Assam Act into a Police report to attract the pro­visions of Section 251-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. With respect, the decisions of the Cal­cutta High Court and the Madhya Pra­desh High Court, referred to above. In view of the procedure laid down in the West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh Acts, are correct; but, these decisions are of no assistance in the present case to hold that even under the Assam Act, where there is no trace of a procedure of inves­tigation laid down, the ratio deciendi of these cases will govern. The learned Judges of the Calcutta and Madhya Pra­desh High Courts had not to consider 9 case where there was no particular pro­cedure prescribed for investigation of cases under the Opium Act. A question, therefore, still remains whether an Excise Officer's report of an offence under the Assam Act can be held to be a 'police report' as contemplated under Section 251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The expression 'police report' in Section 251-A must be a report emanating from a police officer as such. The fact that an Excise Officer is invested with the powers of an officer-in-charge of a Police Station does not make his report a Police report. It will still be treated as an offence re­port submitted by an Excise Officer even though the Excise Officer may be Invest­ed with the powers of a Police Officer under Section 26 of the Assam Act and may when required carry on investiga­tion of the case under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure as far as they are applicable. Yet, for this reason alone the report submitted by an Excise Officer cannot be a Police report under Section 251-A of the Criminal Pro­cedure Code. Yet, for this reason alone the report submitted by an Excise Officer cannot be a Police report under Section 251-A of the Criminal Pro­cedure Code. The expression 'Police re­port', which is not denned in the Code of Criminal Procedure, should be given a popular and accepted meaning which Is in best accord with the common under­standing of people. By long-drawn pro­cess of reasoning the expression 'Police report' should not be given a meaning which does not fulfill the first essential, namely that it must be a report of a police officer enrolled or appointed as such and without any veil whatsoever. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court had to consider in the case of State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram, AIR 1962 SC 276 , whether the Customs Officer is a Police Officer for the purposes of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Their Lordships at one place observed as follows: "The words 'police officer' are there­fore not to be construed in a narrow way, but have to be construed in a wide and popular sense, as was remarked in Queen v. Hurribo, ILR 1 Cal 207, where a Deputy Commissioner of Police who was actually a police officer and was merely invested with certain magisterial powers was rightly held to be a police officer within the meaning of that ex­pression in Section 25 of the Evidence Act" 9. Besides, refusal to give an ordinary and natural meaning to the expression "police report" and equating an Excise Officer's report with a Police report will result in drastic consequences affecting the procedure of a criminal trial. If the Excise Officer's report is held to be a police report, the case being instituted on such a report, an accused will be depriv­ed of a right to know what the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on oath will be before framing of the charge and also to cross-examine them at that stage. At­tributing such a meaning to an expres­sion in absence of a clear definition In the Code and thereby causing prejudice to an accused in a criminal trial should be always avoided. At­tributing such a meaning to an expres­sion in absence of a clear definition In the Code and thereby causing prejudice to an accused in a criminal trial should be always avoided. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the Excise Officer's report even though he may be invested with the powers of a police offi­cer for the purposes of investigation and even though he may have actually inves­tigated the case under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be equated with a police report In order to have the status of a police report, as contemplated under Section 251-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, it must not only be made on the conclusion of the investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure but also the investigation concerned must be conduct­ed by a Police Officer and not an Excise Officer exercising the powers of a Police officer. The above conclusion will no be disturbed if cognizance is taken of such a report either under Section 190 (1) (a) or under Section 190 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Even assum­ing such a report to be a report of a police officer for the purpose of taking cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b), the legal position is not at all affected if such a report is treated as a complaint and taken cognizance of as such under Sec­tion 190 (1) (a) of the Criminal Proce­dure Code. Even if cognizance is taken under the latter section, there is no diffi­culty as under Section 200 (aa) the Court is not required to examine the Excise Officer when the complaint is by a public servant. Even treating it as a complaint, there may not be any necessity for issue of process by the Magistrate under Sec­tion 204. Criminal Procedure Code as the Excise Officer is empowered to arrest a person (Sections 20, 21 of the Assam Act) and he can also forward such a person under Section 167 or under Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure exercis­ing some of the powers of investigation under Chapter XIV. If the expression 'police report' Is interpreted in this man­ner, it will be in accord with the popu­lar sense of the term, will not result in prejudice to the accused unnecessarily and will also not affect the jurisdiction of the Magistrate in taking cognizance of the offence. 10. If the expression 'police report' Is interpreted in this man­ner, it will be in accord with the popu­lar sense of the term, will not result in prejudice to the accused unnecessarily and will also not affect the jurisdiction of the Magistrate in taking cognizance of the offence. 10. From the above discussion and for the reasons indicated, the Magistrate has committed no irregularity in pro­ceeding with the trial of the accused under Section 252 of the Code of Crimi­nal Procedure and succeeding sections. The accused having pleaded guilty to the charge, which was framed on the evi­dence of a prosecution witness examin­ed in his presence, there was no illegality nor any irregularity in the trial and the conviction based on the plea of guilty is perfectly valid in law. 11. Our attention was drawn on behalf of the accused to a Single Bench deci­sion of this Court in Criminal Revn. No. 108 of 1963 D/- 17-1-1964 (Assam), where­in a contrary view was taken relying on Section 26 of the Assam Act. For the detailed reasons appearing in the fore­going discussion, with respect, we are unable to agree with the aforesaid deci­sion of his Lordship. 12. At the end, we may note that the view we have taken in this case of the procedure of trial to be adopted in an offence under the Assam Act, we under- ' stand is also in accord with a consistent practice which has been followed by the , Excise Officers in bringing the offenders to book under this Act. It was also the , earlier practice under the Opium Act, of course prior to the amendment of the , Code of Criminal Procedure in 1955 when the dichotomy of the procedure envisaged under Section 251-A of the Code of i Criminal Procedure was absent. We may also note that the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Calcutta High Court were considering a case reverse of the kind in­volved in this petition. There the proce­dure followed by the Magistrate was under S. 251A and the grievance was that the procedure under S. 252 and succeed­ing sections was applicable, a view which found favour with the learned Judges of those Courts. There the proce­dure followed by the Magistrate was under S. 251A and the grievance was that the procedure under S. 252 and succeed­ing sections was applicable, a view which found favour with the learned Judges of those Courts. We may also observe that their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 1963, (Amal Shah v. State of Madhya Pradesh) dated 11th December, 1964 (SC), noticed the decisions of the Calcutta and the Madhya Pradesh High Courts, mentioned earlier, but left the matter open as the report in the case before their Lordships was one which was actually submitted by a police officer although relating to an Excise offence. 13. In the result, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are upheld and the petition is dismissed. The accused-petitioner shall surrender to serve out the sentence. We would like to place on record our appreciation of the valuable .assistance rendered by Mr. J. P. Bhattacharjee, the learned Counsel appearing as amicus curiae at the request of the Court. Order accordingly.