JUDGMENT K.C. DHULIYA, J. 1. THE applicant was convicted under Section 60 (1) of U. P. Excise Act (in short the Act) and was sentenced to R. I. for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo R. I. for further period of six months, by Additional Munsif Magistrate, Haldwani on 15-11-1980, in Criminal case No. 1333 of 1980. THE Magistrate also passed an order under sub-section (e) of Section 72 of the Act, confiscating the Ambassador Car No. USR 5969. He filed the appeal before the Sessions Judge, Nainital, who dismissed the same by judgment and order dated 1st February, 1982 affirming the conviction of the applicant and also confiscation of the Car. He, however, set aside the order regarding imposition of fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 60 (1) the Act. Hence this revision. 2. THE material facts giving rise to this revision are these; according to prosecution on 20-11-1978 at about 10.15 P.M., Nanhey, the applicant, owner and driver of ambassador Car No. USR 5969, was found carrying 144 bottles of country made liquors at Mohalla Dharampura, Haldwani, District Nainital, where prohibition was on force during that period. THE prosecution examined five witnesses in support of the case PW 1, P.D. Malik, Excise Inspector, and PW 3 Krishna Kumar, Excise; Constable, are the witnesses of fact and it is on their testimony that the applicant was convicted. Two other witnesses are formal viz., Head Moharrir Gopal Datt and Shiv Singh, who were called as Court witnesses to prove certain papers. The applicant-accused denied the case of prosecution. He, however, stated that he was bringing passengers from Lal Kunwa and it was from their attaches that the bottles of liquor were found, when a search was taken on Toll Barrier on Bareilly Road. He examined two defence witnesses. One of the defence witness is a clerk of the office of R. T. O. Kathgodam, Nainital, who stated that the taxi No. USR 5969 belonging to the applicant had permit only for Kumaon Region and not for outside area, meaning thereby that the Car was not permitted to ply between Haldwani and Bareilly. The second defence witness Shyamlal deposed that on that day he was also travelling in that taxi and no liquor was found in the taxi. 3. The second defence witness Shyamlal deposed that on that day he was also travelling in that taxi and no liquor was found in the taxi. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant at length as well as A.G.A. Learned counsel for the applicant has made one legal submission that the Excise Inspector has not followed the procedure laid down under rule 281 of the Rules framed under the Act and also guidelines given for search under Section 165 Cr PC and as such the search is illegal, on account of which the trial is vitiated and the applicant is entitled for clear acquittal, 4. THE facts of the case are almost admitted. It is admitted that during the year in question or on the relevant date i.e. 20-11-1978, there was complete prohibition in the district of Naiaital. It is also admitted by the applicant that 144 country liquor bottels were recovered from his taxi at 10.15 P.M. His version is that the same belonged to the passengers which has not been believed by the two courts below. His stand was falsified by DW 2, Shyamlal, who deposed that he was travelling in the taxi and stated that in the taxi nothing incriminating was found. Regarding the testimony of DW 1 that the permit of the taxi was for Kumaon region only, is not in question, inasmuch as it is not the case of the prosecution that the bottles of country made liquor were imported from Bareilly. Lal Kunwa is in district Nainital, on way to Bareilly and the name of the road, is Bareilly Road, which does not mean that the liquor in question was being brought from Bareilly. In fact learned counsel for the applicant did not raise any objection on the question of facts. He has placed reliance on two authorities of the Supreme Court and contended that the whole trial being illegal, as the procedure laid down was not followed and so his client should be acquitted. The first authority stated by the learned counsel is State of Rajasthan v. Rehman, AIR 1960 SC page 210. In that case the discussion was about applicability of Section 165 of the Cr PC and the Central Excise and Salt tax Act. The facts of that case are entirely different from the present case. There was prosecution of Rehman under Section 353 of IPC. In that case the discussion was about applicability of Section 165 of the Cr PC and the Central Excise and Salt tax Act. The facts of that case are entirely different from the present case. There was prosecution of Rehman under Section 353 of IPC. The accused was acquitted on the ground that the procedure as laid down under Section 165 Cr PC for search was not followed, inasmuch as, the raid that was conducted under Central Excise and Salt Tax Act was without warrant and the raiding party led by Deputy Superintendent of Excise did not reduce anything in writing giving reasons for not obtaining warrant from the Magistrate, that the search was being conducted without any warrant as contemplated under Section 165 Cr PC. The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Central Excise and Salt Tax Act and rules framed thereunder and Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The relevant portion of para 6 of the judgment may be extracted as under: 6 Under Section 18 of the Act all searches made under the Act or the Rules made thereunder shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Code relating to searches under it. Section 37 empowers the Central Government to make rules for carrying into effect the purposes of the Act, and, in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, to make rules authorising and regulating this inspection of search of any place in so far as such inspection or search is essential for the proper levy and collection of duties imposed by the Act. The Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by that section framed Rule 201 authorising itself to empower any officer of any department under its control to enter and search at any time by day or night any land, building, enclosed place, premises, vessel, conveyance or other place upon or in which he has reason to believe that excisable goods are processed, sorted, stored, manufactured or carried in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules." 5. SECTION 65 Cr PC which relates to search by police officer during the course of investigation and falls under Chapter XII of the new Code, whereas the said section was under Chapter XIV of the Old Code. 6. SECTION 65 Cr PC which relates to search by police officer during the course of investigation and falls under Chapter XII of the new Code, whereas the said section was under Chapter XIV of the Old Code. 6. IT is most important to note that under rule 201 framed under the Central Excise and Salt Tax Act, it has been clearly mentioned that definition of place included land, building, enclosed place, premises, vessle, and conveyance. Thus the procedure that is to be followed under Section 165 of the Code was applicable, while making search of the places that have been mentioned in the Act and the Rules thereof. But the fasts and law relating to the present case are entirely different. For the sake of convenience rule 281 of the Rules under the Act is being reproduced as under:- "281. Arrests, searches, Challans and evidence particular attention is drawn to the following points connected with investigation of offences: (a)............ (b)............ (c) Search warrant in form D-18 should be obtained in all cases as provided for in section 52 of the Excise Act In cases where a search warrant can be obtained without affording the offender an opportunity to escape or of concealing evidence of the offence, search may be made without warrant, but the grounds of belief should be recorded in the form of a memorandum before entering the place to be searched." In making search without warrant, the grounds of belief are to be recorded in the form of a memorandum by the Excise Official before entering the place to be searched. Here my emphasis is on the place to be searched, which in fact is the main bone of contention in this case. 7. IN the Act the definition of place is given under sub-section (22) of Section 3 of the Act which is being quoted below: "Section 3 (22)-'Place' includes a house, building, shop, room, booth, tent and vessel." 8. THE above definition of the place does not include a vehicle or car or a conveyance. Thus the procedure laid down under section 165 Cr PC read with Rule 281 is to be followed, while tie raiding party is to make entry to a place, defined under sub-section (22) of Section 3 of the Act. THE above definition of the place does not include a vehicle or car or a conveyance. Thus the procedure laid down under section 165 Cr PC read with Rule 281 is to be followed, while tie raiding party is to make entry to a place, defined under sub-section (22) of Section 3 of the Act. In Rajasthan case (Supra) under Rule 201 and Section 18 of Central Excise and Salt Tax Act, conveyance was included in the definition of place It is, therefore, clear that the authority of the Supreme Court referred to above is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch as, the local Act does not include the conveyance in the definition of place. It cannot be said that it is mere omission, as has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant. THE very fact that the legislature has chosen to include vessel in the definition of place, it cannot be said that it is a mere omission on the part of the legislature to exclude conveyance or vehicle from being included in the definition of place. This Court cannot enlarge the definition of place and include something more, which is not there. THE other authority referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant is K.L. Subbayya v. State of Karnataka, 1979 ACC (16) page 150. In this case Sections 53 and 54 of Mysore Excuse Act were being interpreted. There was also a search of a car and incriminating excisable material was found in the car. THE case was challened and Subbayya was prosecuted and convicted. THE Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the Inspector who searched the cars admitted that he did not make any record of any ground on the basis of which he had reasonably believed that an offence under the Act was being committed before proceeding to search the car and the Supreme Court held that according to provisions of section 54 of the Mysore Excise Act, the entire search being without jurisdiction the; conviction was vitiated and the appeal was allowed. But in the body of the judgment of the Supreme Court, it is mentioned that in the Mysore Excise Act the vehicle was included in the definition of place, which has not been included in U. P. Excise Act. This is the basic difference between the cases decided by the Supreme Court and the case in hand. But in the body of the judgment of the Supreme Court, it is mentioned that in the Mysore Excise Act the vehicle was included in the definition of place, which has not been included in U. P. Excise Act. This is the basic difference between the cases decided by the Supreme Court and the case in hand. THE relevant part of the judgment of the Supreme Court is being extracted and placed below: "It was, however, suggested that the word 'place' would not include the car, but the definition of the word 'place' under the Act clearly includes vehicle which would include a car. Thus the ground on which the argument of the petitioners has been rejected by the High Court cannot be sustained by us." For strengthening the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, it has been urged that if a power is given to a particular officer to do a thing in a particular manner, he should do the same in that manner or not at all and since the procedure as laid (flown under Section 165 of the Code having been not followed, the search was without jurisdiction and consequently the trial was vitiated. Both the sides placed reliance in a case Ramchand v. Govind, AIR 1975 SC page 915. In that case Supreme Court was discussing certain provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultureal Lands Act. After discussing various decisions from Taylor and Taylor and Mazir and other decisions of the Supreme Court, the principle was accepted that "where a power is given to do certain thing in certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all, another methods of the performance are necessarily forbidden. "There cannot be any dispute with respect to this principle of law which is being accepted for the last more than a century; but I do not find any departure from this principle in the present case. The fact that conveyance is not included in the definition of place in U. P. Act, the search so made is not illegal. There are also decisions on the paint that no universal rule can be laid down for deciding the cases, as each cast: is to be decided on the basis of its own facts and the law applicable to it. There are also decisions on the paint that no universal rule can be laid down for deciding the cases, as each cast: is to be decided on the basis of its own facts and the law applicable to it. Tie Supreme Court in that very case (Supra) has laid down as under:- "It is the duty of courts of justice to try to get at the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope. Such intention of the legislature is, therefore, to be ascertained upon a review of the language, subject matter and importance of the provision in relation to the general object intended to be prevented and the remedy to be promoted by the Act." 9. IN view of the above discussion and the fact that sub-section (22) of Section 3 of the Act does not include any vehicle and conveyance in the definition of place and the procedure laid down under section 165 of the Code is to be followed while making search of the place as defined under subsection (22) of section 3, which excludes the vehicle the intention of legislature is made clear. For following the procedure of Section 165 Cr PC U. P. Excise Act and the rules framed thereunder, Section 54 and rule 280 have referred to the applicability of the Code, while making; search and effecting arrests in connection with the Excise Offences. Section 54 of the Act is being reproduced as under:- "54. Procedure relating to arrest, searches, etc. The provision of the (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) relating to arrests, searches, search warrants, production of persons arrested and investigation into offences shall be held to be applicable, so for as may be, to all action taken in these respects under this Act Provided that an offence punishable under section 60, Section 61 (Section 62, Section 54-A or Section 65) may be investigated into without the order of Magistrate, and that any warrant issued by the Collector under section 51 or section 52 may be executed by any officer selected by the Collector for that purpose." 10. IT is clear from the above quoted section that provisions of the Code are to be followed, so far as may be, meaning thereby, so far as may be possible for fulfilling the requirements of the Act. IT is clear from the above quoted section that provisions of the Code are to be followed, so far as may be, meaning thereby, so far as may be possible for fulfilling the requirements of the Act. The procedure is to be followed as laid down under section 165 of the Code, relating to the places which have been defined as referred to above, and since the case is not included in any such place, therefore., it was not incumbent for the Excise Inspector to have reduced his grounds of belief into writing before making search of the car. I therefore, hold that the search of the car was within jurisdiction and the trial as held was perfectly legal and in accordance with law. I, therefore, dismiss this Criminal Revision. 11. LEARNED counsel also submitted about the sentence. The Lower Appellate court has already set aside the sentence of fine of Rs. 2000/-. The case is an old one of 20th November, 1978, as such it will be just and proper if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. This is being done, keeping in view of the fact that there is an order of confiscation of the Car no. USR 5969, under Section 72 of the Act. The applicant has already suffered much and confiscation of the car itself is sufficient punishment that has been given to him, which is being maintained. The car, as ordered by courts below, remains forfeited to the Government and the same will be disposed of in accordance with Rules, as the confiscation is being upheld by this Court. 12. SINCE I have allowed this Revision partly as mentioned above, the applicant need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. Revision partly allowed.