Judgment 1. The petitioner stands convicted for an offence under Sec. 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-. in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on the 17th July, 1966, at about 3 P.M. the Sub-Inspector of Excise (P.W. 1) raided the house of the petitioner and recovered 933 grams of non-duty paid ganja 1 kilogram ganja, 300 grams of wild bhang and some weights etc. A seizure list of the articles seized was duly signed by witnesses and the accused (the petitioner). The defence of the petitioner at the trial was of innocence and false implication. 3. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge in agreement with the Munsiff-Magistrate found on scrutiny of the evidence on the record that the articles included in the search list were recovered from the possession of the petitioner and upheld the conviction and the sentence of the petitioner as above. Hence, this revision. 4. Mr. Prem Shanker Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner very rightly did not challenge the finding of fact, but raised two points in support of the application. His first contention was that one of the search witnesses (Sidique) was not the resident of Singheshwar Asthan where the search was made, but he was resident of about four miles away from that place. But even if so, the non-compliance of the provision of Sec.103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can, at best, be said to be a case of irregularity, which cannot be challenged after the conviction has been recorded in absence of prejudice to the petitioner. There is nothing on the record to show that any prejudice has been caused to him. The other submission was that Section 74 of the Act was not complied with. The Section runs as follows :- "74. Power to reach without a warrant. - Whenever any Excise Officer not below such rank as the State Government may, by notification, prescribe, has reason to believe that an offence punishable under Sec. 47, Sec. 49, Sec. 55 or Sec. 56, has been, is being or is likely to be committed or abetted, and that a search-warrant cannot be obtained without affording the offender an opportunity of escaping or of concealing evidence of the offence. he may, after recording the grounds of his belief at any time by day or night enter and search any place and may seize anything found therein which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act; and may detain and search, and if he thinks proper, arrest, any person found in such place whom he has reason to believe to have committed or abetted an a such offence as aforesaid." In support of the submission reliance has been placed on the cases reported in 1963 BLJR 671. (Pairoo Tatwa V/s. State); AIR 1960 SC 210 : (1960 Cri LJ 286); (State of Rajasthan V/s. Rehman) and AIR 1963 SC 822 : ((1963) 1 SCR LJ 809). (Radha Kishun V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh). 5. The point for determination in the case of 1963 BLJR 671 (supra) was as to whether there was non-compliance of Section 74 of the Act, as the officer concerned had not recorded reasons. Whether the failure to comply with the provisions of Section 74 of the Act would amount to an illegality following the decision in the case of AIR 1960 SC 210 : (1960 Cri LJ 286) (supra), it was held that non-compliance of the provisions of Section 74 of the Act will not amount to any illegality, but "failure to do so without any sufficient explanation may give a valid jurisdiction to the person searched to obstruct such a search even by causing such assault to the officer as is necessary to protect himself". The provision of Section 74 of the Act and of Sec.165, Criminal P.C. are pari materia. The effect of non-compliance of Sec.165 was considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of AIR 1963 SC 822 : (1963-1 Cri LJ 809) (supra). In the words of their Lordships - " ... So far as the alleged illegality of the search is concerned it is sufficient to say that even assuming that the search was illegal the seizure of the articles is not vitiated. It may be that where the provisions of Sections 103 and 165. Code of Criminal Procedure are contravened the search could be resisted by the person whose premises are sought to be searched, It may also be that because of the illegality of the search the Court may be inclined to examine carefully the evidences regarding seizure. It may be that where the provisions of Sections 103 and 165. Code of Criminal Procedure are contravened the search could be resisted by the person whose premises are sought to be searched, It may also be that because of the illegality of the search the Court may be inclined to examine carefully the evidences regarding seizure. But beyond these two consequences no further consequence ensues......" It is thus clear that non-compliance of Section 74 of the Act does not amount to any illegality so as to make the convictions meted out to the petitioner either unenforceable or without jurisdiction. Thus the conviction of the petitioner on this ground cannot be set aside. It is, accordingly, affirmed. I would, however, reduce the sentence of the petitioner to a fine of Rs. 200.00 (two hundred) only, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 6 In the result, the application is dismissed subject to the modification in the sentence of the petitioner, as indicated above.