JUDGMENT T. U. Mehta, C. J.—The State has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal recorded by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kandaghat in criminal cases No. 29/2 of 1970 and 30/2 of 1970. The brief facts which form the background of this appeal are as under. 2. On 4-3-1969 at about 9.30 a. m. Sub-Inspector of Police Station, Dharampur, one Shri Sant Lal Malik, received some secret information that the respondent Mohinder Singh, who was at that time working as a wine contractor, was occupying some residential accommodation at the place called Sukha-Johri at Dharampur, and was adulterating and bottling liquor with the help of his brother Balwant Singh with a view to sell the same. The Sub-Inspector thereupon arranged a raiding-party with the help of A. S. I. Prem Nath (P. W. 9), some constables and three witnesses who are P. W. 2 Krishan Dev Ratti, P. W. 3 Kuldip Singh and P. W. 4 Gurdutt. The raiding party thereupon went to the place which was reported to be utilized for the purpose of adulteration and bottling of liquor and which was also reported to have been occupied by the respondent Mohinder Singh. It is said that after reaching that place the outer door of the residential premises in question was knocked. Mohinder Singh opened the door but seeing the police party for raid, he is said to have closed the door and gone inside. The Sub-Inspector, Shri Malik, thereupon knocked at the door and after some effort the door was opened again by Mohinder Singh. It is the case of the prosecution that this house was also occupied by the respondent Balwant Singh, who is the brother of Mohinder Singh, The prosecution evidence reveals that Mohinder Singh reported to the raiding party about the presence of his brother Balwant Singh inside the house and that there was another back door through which also the entry to the house could be made. The police party thereafter seems to have sent somebody at the back door. According to one of the witnesses of the prosecution even the back door was got opened but after opening the same Balwant Singh is said to have run away through one of the windows of the house. One of the constables of the raiding party is said to have chased Balwant Singh but the latter managed to escape. 3. According to one of the witnesses of the prosecution even the back door was got opened but after opening the same Balwant Singh is said to have run away through one of the windows of the house. One of the constables of the raiding party is said to have chased Balwant Singh but the latter managed to escape. 3. The raiding party on entering into the house occupied by Mohinder Singh, found plenty of materials suggesting that liquor was being adulterated and botded in other bottles bearing the labels of some known commercial qualities such as Black Knight, Solan No. 1, Blue Seal etc. Certain empty bottles of these reputed qualities of liquor, capsules and labels were found. The details of these are mentioned in the memo of recovery found at Ex. P. B. The list contains 36 different types of articles. Some of the articles were separately sealed and the seal was handed over to the witness Krishan Kumar Ratti. Memo of recovery was signed by all the three witnesses named above as well as the accused Mohinder Singh and the Station house Officer, Police Station, Dharampur, Shri Malik. The arrest of Mohinder Singh was immediately effected. These facts are with reference to criminal case No. 29/2 of 1970. 4. It appears that thereafter some statement of Mohinder Singh was recorded under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and his shop was also raided and from that shop certain other articles were recovered. With regard to the second raid at the shop of the accused Mohinder Singh a separate case has been filed for the offences under sections 411 and 485,1. P. C. This is criminal case No. 30/2 of 1970. 5. So far as this latter case for the alleged offences under sections 411 and 485,1. P. C. is concerned we find that there is no evidence against any of the accused persons and even the learned Advocate-General has fairly and rightly conceded this. Under the circumstances we find that the acquittal of the respondents of the offence under sections 411 and 485, I.P.C. should be confirmed. The State appeal with regard to this offence is, therefore, dismissed. 6. Under the circumstances we find that the acquittal of the respondents of the offence under sections 411 and 485, I.P.C. should be confirmed. The State appeal with regard to this offence is, therefore, dismissed. 6. We shall now concentrate our attention on the facts relating to the criminal case No. 29/2 of 1970 which relates to the different offending articles which are said to have been found from the possession of both the respondents. With regard to these articles, it is an admitted position that the offence, if proved, would be covered by sections 24 and 24-A of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and would, therefore, be punishable under section 16 (1) (a) of that Act. According to section 61, whoever, in contravention of any section of this Act or of any rule, notification issued or given thereunder or order made, or of any license, permit or pass granted under the Act, manufactures, collects or possesses any intoxicant, shall be punishable for every such offence with imprisonment for a terra which may extend to three years and with fine upto 2,000 rupees. The case of the prosecution is that both the respondents were found in possession of different articles mentioned above in contravention of sections 24 and 24-A of the Act and, therefore, should be punished under section 61 (1) (a). 7. It is not in dispute that if the respondents are found to be in possession of the articles mentioned above, the punishment contemplated by section 61 would be invited. However, the learned Advocate of the respondents strenuously urged that looking to the evidence which is recorded in the case it is not possible to say that any of the respondents was in actual and conscious possession of these articles and, therefore, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate should be confirmed. 8. Before discussing the question whether the prosecution has satisfactorily proved the actual and conscious possession of the offending articles by the respondents, or any of them, it would be necessary to dispose of one point which has found favour with the learned Magistrate who has recorded the order of acquittal. The learned Magistrate has found that since the Sub-Inspector, Mr. Before discussing the question whether the prosecution has satisfactorily proved the actual and conscious possession of the offending articles by the respondents, or any of them, it would be necessary to dispose of one point which has found favour with the learned Magistrate who has recorded the order of acquittal. The learned Magistrate has found that since the Sub-Inspector, Mr. Malik, has not recorded any order before proceeding with raid, and has not complied with the procedure contemplated by section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the whole search was illegal and, therefore, cannot be taken into account for the purpose of basing any conviction. In this connection it should be noted that when the trial took place before the learned Magistrate the Sub-Inspector, Mr. Malik, was not available for giving evidence as he had died. However, A. S. I. Prem Nath, who was one of the members of the raiding party, was available and has been able to give his evidence in the Court. In his cross-examination he has admitted that no memo regarding information and no note of the things to be searched was prepared before hand and as such, no copy thereof could be sent to the Illaqa Magistrate. Basing his judgment on these admissions of the A. S. I Prem Nath the learned Magistrate has taken the view that want of required memo to be prepared under section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would vitiate the whole of the investigation. For this purpose he has relied upon some decisions of the Punjab High Court which go to show that if the search is illegal then it can be resisted by the person whose premises are to be searched and, therefore, such resisting person can be said to have committed on offence. 9. We find that the Punjab decisions relied upon by the learned Magistrate have no relevance to the facts of the present case. It is undoubtedly true that if a public authority takes any illegal action then a citizen would commit no offence if that illegal action is resisted. That is not, however, the question involved in this case. 9. We find that the Punjab decisions relied upon by the learned Magistrate have no relevance to the facts of the present case. It is undoubtedly true that if a public authority takes any illegal action then a citizen would commit no offence if that illegal action is resisted. That is not, however, the question involved in this case. Here the question is whether, even if it is presumed that the search was not legal inasmuch as the provisions of section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not complied with, the resultant evidence which is collected as a result of the search would lose its evidentiary value. In our opinion, the value of the evidence which is produced in the Court cannot be obliterated by any action which is taken during the course of investigation and which is found to be either against the provisions of law or irregular. The Court has to give its decision on the strength of the facts which are produced before it and, therefore, the illegality or irregularity committed at a prior stage during the course of police investigation would not vitiate the efficacy of the evidence which is produced before the Court. Under the circumstances the view taken by the learned Magistrate on this question cannot be confirmed. 10. We shall now go to the merits of the case. The main contention of the respondents is that the prosecution has not been able to produce evidence from which it can be concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents were in actual and conscious possession of the offending articles. Here it should be noted that it is not the case of the defence that the offending articles were planted by the police at the place from where they were recovered. The contention rather is that the place from which these articles were recovered was not in possession of any of the respondents. 11. The case of the prosecution is that the premises from which these offending articles were recovered are of the ownership of P. W. 6 Om Parkash and were taken on rent by Mohinder Singh for the purpose of carrying out this nefarious activity of adulterating and bottling liquor in the labels of some other well known qualities manufactured by others. 12. 12. In view of the above contentions it is first necessary to decide whether the residential premises which were raided by the Police were kept on lease by Mohinder Singh respondent or not. In this connection reference should be made to the deposition given by P. W. 6 Om Parkash. He says that he knows the accused Mohinder Singh, and that this Mohinder Singh had taken his house situated at Sukhi-Johri on rent through Lala Bhagirath who is a shop-keeper at Dharampur. He further states that this house is situated adjacent to the set of a Sardar. According to him, he used to receive the rent of Rs. 45 per month from Mohinder Singh. In his cross-examination he has stated that no rent-note was executed and that 2 to 3 persons used to live in the house so rented by Mohinder Singh. The learned Magistrate has rejected the evidence given by this witness on the ground that Lala Bhagirath, through whom this tenancy was created, has not been examined by the prosecution. It is difficult to understand how the want of examination of Lala Bhagirath would destroy the evidence supplied by the witness Om Parkash especially when the witness On Parkash categorically says that be knows Mohinder Singh accused, that Mohinder Singh occupies his house which was rented to him through Lala Bhagirath, and that he has been actually receiving the rent of Rs. 45 per month from Mohinder Singh. If these facts are believed, and we find no reason to disbelieve them, it is immaterial whether Lala Bhagirath through whom the tenancy was created was examined by the prosecution or not. Shri Chhabil Dass, the learned Advocate of the respondents, contended that from the deposition of Om Parkash it does not become clear that Mohinder Singh had rented the same house where the raid was effected by the Police. This contention is net acceptable for the simple reason that Om Parkash specifically states that Mohinder Singh occupied as tenant his house situated at Sukhi-Johri at Dharampur and that this house was situated adjacent to the set of a Sardar. There is nothing in the cross-examination to suggest that Mohinder Singh had taken on lease some other property from Om Parkash. There is nothing in the cross-examination to suggest that Mohinder Singh had taken on lease some other property from Om Parkash. Under the circumstances we find that the learned Magistrate was wrong in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the premises which were raideded by the Police were not in possession of Mohinder Singh as a tenant. 13. A part from what is stated above, we find that the prosecution has produced positive evidence to show that the house which was raided was opened first by Mohinder Singh. If this fact is satisfactorily proved by the prosecution, it matters little whether that house was taken on rent by Mohinder Singh from Om Parkash or from any body else. Under the circumstances it is pertinent to enquire whether at the time of the raid Mohinder Singh was found in actual possession of the premises raided or not. On this question we find that the prosecution has produced consistent evidence through witnesses Krishan Dev Ratti (P. W. 2), Kuldip Singh (P. W. 3), Gurdutt (P. W. 4) and A. S. I. Prem Nath (P. W. 9). AH these witnesses have very clearly nd categorically stated that it was Mohinder Singh who opened the door of the house and thereafter they could have an entry inside the house. There is some minor variation on the question whether it was on the guidance of Mohinder Singh that further search about his brother Balwant Singh was made. But this variation is not of the type which would destory the basic fact that when a knock was given at the door, it was Mohinder Singh who was found in possession of that house, and it was he who ultimately allowed the raiding party to enter the house. 14. Further facts which the learned Magistrate has omitted from taking into consideration are that the recovery memo Ex. P. B. is signed, amongst others, even by Mohinder Singh. The prosecution witness No. 4, Shri Gurdutt, who was one of the members of the raiding party, has positively said in his deposition that Mohinder Singh has signed this statement. There is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness to challenge this fact. It is evident that the recovery memo Ex. P. B. was prepared and signed at the time of the raid. There is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness to challenge this fact. It is evident that the recovery memo Ex. P. B. was prepared and signed at the time of the raid. It, therefore, follows that this memo was prepared in the presence of Mohinder Singh at the premises which were raided. If a reference is made to the statement given by Mohinder Singh it would be found that he has made a clean denial of every fact of the prosecution case. He has, therefore, denied even the fact about his presence at the time of the raid in the premises which were raided. This denial is obviously wrong and has to be appreciated in connection with the other positive evidence produced by the prosecution. 15. The next important fact which the learned Magistrate has failed to take into consideration is that the police had effected the arrest of Mohinder Singh then and there. This could not have been possible unless Mohinder Singh was present at the time of the raid. 16. Taking all these facts into consideration we have no hesitation in concluding that it was Mohinder Singh who was in possession of the premises when the raid was effected by the police. A huge quantity of offending articles was found in the premises and, therefore, it cannot be said that the persons occupying the premises were not conscious of the existence of those articles. To conclude, therefore, it must follow that the prosecution has proved very satisfactorily and beyond any doubt that Mohinder Singh was in actual and conscious possession of all these offending articles. 17. So far as the case of Balwant Singh is concerned we have minutely perused the evidence recorded in the case. All the witnesses say that some body managed to run away from the house at the time of the raid and that somebody was reported to be Balwant Singh. However, nobody claims to have actually seen the face of the person who was reported to have run away. The constable, who is said to have chased that man, who ran away, is not examined by the Police. Even P. W. 9 A. S. I. Prem Nath does not support the case of the prosecution in any manner for the purpose of establishing the identity of this Balwant Singh. The constable, who is said to have chased that man, who ran away, is not examined by the Police. Even P. W. 9 A. S. I. Prem Nath does not support the case of the prosecution in any manner for the purpose of establishing the identity of this Balwant Singh. According to this A. S. I. Balwant Singh was "probably" arrested in the month of January, 1970. If that be so, we do not find any explanation from the record of the case why the arrest of Balwant Singh was delayed upto the month of January, 1970. Under these circumstances we find that the evidence produced by the prosecution against Balwant Singh cannot be treated as proving beyond reasonable doubt that Balwant Singh was also in possession of these premises. 18. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that since the Police seems to have concocted a false case against Balwant Singh, the credibility of the prosecution evidence even against Mohinder Singh would be seriously shaken. We are not impressed by this argument because it is not possible to say that the Police has concocted" the evidence against Balwant Singh. The evidence does show that somebody ran away from the raided premises after the Police entered the same It is very likely that the Police suspected this man to be Balwant Singh because the original information was received against both the brothers, Mohinder Singh and Balwant Singh. 19. In view of these findings we maintain the acquittal of Balwant Singh, but set aside the order of acquittal with regard to the respondent Mohinder Singh, and we hold that the prosecution has satisfactorily proved that Mohinder Singh has committed the offence punishable under section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914. 20. What remains now to be considered is the question of sentence. It has been strenuously urged on behalf of the respondent Mohinder Singh that the offence has been committed in the year 1969 and today we have crossed about 10 years during the course of which this case has been hanging fire. It was also pointed out that as a result of this case, the license of the respondent has been cancelled and he is black-listed and he is now not in trade. It was also pointed out that as a result of this case, the license of the respondent has been cancelled and he is black-listed and he is now not in trade. It was, therefore, contended that a very lenient view of the matter should be taken, and at the most, some amount of fine should be imposed on Moinder Singh as punishment. 21. So far as the principle is concerned we would like to make it clear that the offences of this type should be viewed with great concern. If a merchant who deals in a consumable article is found to be adulterating the same and changing the labels and botting them with a view to make it appear that the articles sold by him are of different manufacture, that leads to wide spread cheating and adulteration which cannot be countenanced in view of the modern set of circumstances. This is not merely a question of revenne. This is a question of organized, calculated crime against the whole of the society which cannot be countenanced lightly. Therefore, in ordinary course we would have come down very heavily on proof of the offence, of this type. 22. We, however, find that for various reasons, the matter has been prolonged beyond reasonable time. The prosecution has been hanging since last about 10 years. Another mitigating fact is found that according to the Expert evidence the only adulteration which the respondent has made is of water which has brought down the degree of alcoholic contents. However, looking to the facts of the case we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Advocate of the respondents that this offence should be visited merely by an order of fine. In our opinion, taking the total view of the case, the respondent Mohinder Singh should be punished with simple imprisonment of one month and a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default of which he shall undergo further simple imprisonment of one month. He is ordered to surrender and serve the sentence. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Appeal disposed accordingly.