Judgment: 1. This Revision Case is directed against the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.96/82 on the file of the Court of the Sessions Judge, East Godavari, at Rajahmundry. The facts that led to this revision case is as follows: 2. The Excise Sub-Inspector of Ananparty range filed a complaint against these two revisionists, who are A-1 and A-2, in the case for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act. It is alleged that on 31.5.1979 at 2 p.m. house bearing door No.1-281 at Anaparthy Village was searched by the Excise Officers and only A-1 was present at that time. In that house 20 kgs. of ganja kept is a gunny bag was seized. It was later found on chemical examinations that the material seized is ‘ganja’. With this allegation, a charge-sheet is filed in the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ramachandrapuram, and a trial took place against them in C.C.No.120/80. The learned Magistrate found both the accused guilty of the offence under section 34(a) read with section 14 of the A.P. Excise Act and sentenced each one of them to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default to suffer imprisonment for one month each. The accused then took the matter in appeal to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment dated 20.12.1982 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. Against this judgment, the present revision case is preferred by the two accused. 3. Now, the question before us is whether the judgments of the two lower courts suffer from any incorrectness, impropriety or illegality? 4. The learned Counsel for the revisionists urged that the offence of these accused falls under section 34(h) and not under section 34(e) ; and secondly urged that the mandatory provision of section 55 of the A.P.Excise Act has not been followed, and, therefore, the entire prosecution is liable to be quashed. 5. As far as the first contention is concerned, I feel there is some substance, in the arguments of the revision petitioners. Theirs is the house. In that house, 20 Kgs. of ‘ganja’ was found and seized. 5. As far as the first contention is concerned, I feel there is some substance, in the arguments of the revision petitioners. Theirs is the house. In that house, 20 Kgs. of ‘ganja’ was found and seized. There is no material, whatsoever, to infer that this ‘ganja’ is imported from some other country, nor any evidence to infer that this possession is for the purpose of exporting the same to some other country. Obviously, this is a local product from the agency areas of East Godavery and it is for the purpose of sale locally, which is of a small quantity of 20 kgs. only. The place where it is found is Anaparty village and it is not a sea-port. Therefore, from the circumstances that obtain in this case, we can easily infer that the possession of these revision petitioners with regard to the seized property i.e. Ganja, is only a possession for sale. Therefore, the proper section that is applicable in this case is section 34(h) and not section 34(a). 6. Coming to the next contention that provision of section 55 is mandatory and since the same is not followed the search is illegal and consequently, the prosecution is also illegal, let us now examine that section. Section 55 of the Excise Act reads as follows: “Power to search without warrant: Whenever the Commissioner or a Collector or any police officer not below the rank of an officer in charge of a police station or any excise officer not below the rank of an excise Sub-Inspector, has reason to believe that an efficence under section 34 , section 35 , section 36 of section 37 has been is being or is likely to be, committed, and that a search warrant cannot be obtained without affording the offender an opportunity of escape or of concealing evidence of the efficence, he may, after recording the grounds of his belief- (a) at any time by day or night enter and search any place and seize anything found therein, which he has reason to believe to be liable for confiscation under this Act.” Here, the only objection pointed out is that the sub-Inspector of Excise did not record the grounds of his belief that an offence under section 34 has been, is being or is likely to be committed. No doubt, it does not appear that the Sub-Inspector has recorded reasons in writing before the search is made. But, it is a fact from the circumstances of this case that the officer has no time to obtain a search warrant. As a matter of fact, when the house of one Atchamma was being searched, suspicion arose with regard to the revision petitioners and immediately police were asked to guard this house also, so that a search can be made. That shows that there is reasonable suspicion on the part of the Sub-Inspector that an offence under section 34, Excise Act has been committed by the owners of this house. In fact, he made a note immediately after the search that he had no time to obtain a search warrant. Moreover, when facts are so apparent suggesting that the officer has reason to believe that an offence punishable under section 34 of the Excise Act has been committed by the owners of this house, i.e. these revision petitioners, the mere fact that reasons for the search have not been recorded before search do not warrant to give a finding thai the search itself is illegal. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners cited the decision of the Supreme Court in K.L.Subhaya v. State of Karnataka K.L.Subhaya v. State of Karnataka (1979)2 S.C.J. 29: (1979) MLJ. (Crl.) 484: (1979)2 S.C.R. 1131 : (1979) L.W. (Crl.) 213: (1979) Crl.L.J. 651:A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 711, decided on 24.1.1979, where the following observations were made: “Both sections 53 and 54 contain valuable safeguards for the liberty of the citizens in order to protect them from ill-founded or frivolous prosecution or harassment. In the instant case, the Inspector who had searched the car of the accused had not made any record of any ground on the basis of which he had a reasonable belief that an offence under the Act was being committed before proceedings to search the car.” The Court further held that the provisions of section 54 were not at all complied with and that, therefore, non-compliance rendered the entire search without jurisdiction and as a logical corollary vitiated the conviction under section 34 of the Excise Act. Their Lordships have based that finding on the ground that valuable safeguards for the liberty of the citizen are engrafted into sections 53 and 54. Their Lordships have based that finding on the ground that valuable safeguards for the liberty of the citizen are engrafted into sections 53 and 54. But, here in the instant case, the search is made on well-founded suspicion. It may not also be said that the prosecution is frivolous or for the sake of harassing. In a latter case, which we have before us, decided on 4.12.1979, by the Supreme Court, reported in State of Maharashtra v. Natwarlal D.Soni. Stateof Maharashtra v. Natwarlal D.Soni. (1980) Crl.L.J. 420: (1980)2 S.C.R. 340 : A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 593 their Lordships observed: “The police and powers under Criminal Procedure Code to search and seize gold if they had reason to believe that a cognizable offence has been committed in respect thereof. Assuming for argument sake, that the search was illegal, then also, it will not affect the validity of the seizure and further investigation by the customs authorities or the validity of the trial which followed on the complaint of the Assistant Collector of Customs.” My learned brother, Justice Ramachandra Raju, in Public Prosecutor v. Lingam Ramachandraiah Public Prosecutor v. Lingam Ramachandraiah (1974)1 An.W.R. 217 observed that merely on the ground that the Excise Officer failed to record the grounds, as provided under section 55 of the Act, when he conducted the search of the motor-car as provided thereunder, it is not possible to say that the search itself is illegal and no conviction can be based on the evidence of such search. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners cited the decision in Cochan Velayudhan v. State of Kerala Cochan Velayudhan v. State of Kerala (1961) MLJ. (Crl.) 58: A.I.R. 1961 Ker. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners cited the decision in Cochan Velayudhan v. State of Kerala Cochan Velayudhan v. State of Kerala (1961) MLJ. (Crl.) 58: A.I.R. 1961 Ker. 8 where their Lordships of the Supreme Court quoted with approval the following observations of the Nagpur High Court in Ramrao Ekolar v. The Crown Ramrao Ekolar v. The Crown A.I.R. 1951 Nagpur 237 at p.63 thus: “Although the failure to comply with the provision regulating searches may cast doubts upon the bona fides of the officers conducting the search, there is nothing in law which the evidence relating to an irregular search inadmissible; and a conviction based on such evidence is not invalid on that ground alone.” The above observations relied on for the petitioners do not invalidant a conviction based on evidence obtained from irregularly conducted search, although such a search costs doubts upon the officers who conducted the search. Even if the search is illegal it cannot be said that the entire case is to be quashed. In a decision reported in Radha Kishan v. State of U.P. Radha Kishan v. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 822 their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as follows: “It may be that where the provisions of sections 103 and 165, Cr.P.C. are contravened the search can be resisted by the persons 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 evidence regarding the seizure. But beyond these two consequences, no further consequence ensues and the seizure of the articles is not vitiated.” For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, the fact that the property of 20 kgs. of ‘ganja’ is found in the house belonging to A-1 and A-2, can be taken into consideration in assessing the guility of the accused under the provisions of the Excise Act. 7. of ‘ganja’ is found in the house belonging to A-1 and A-2, can be taken into consideration in assessing the guility of the accused under the provisions of the Excise Act. 7. Then the further question, that is argued by the learned Counsel for the revision petitions is that A-1 is a young lady of 20 years and her husband is the owner of the house and at the time of the search, no doubt A-1 is present and that A-1 being the wife is bound to be in the house and that when her husband A-2 bring this prohibited matter and keeps in the house, she is a helpless woman and, therefore, the property cannot be traced to her possession. I see substance in this argument. The wife in our society, that too an illiterate wife, cannot object to the acts of a husband. Perhaps, she may not be knowing that keeping of ‘ganja’ in the house is an offence in itself. In these circumstances, we can say that A-1 may not be conscious that keeping ‘ganja’ in the house is an offence. From this, we can say, that the possession of ganja by A-1 in the house may not be conscious possession. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion, that A-1 is entitled for an acquittal for the offence punishable under section 34(h) of the A.P.Excise Act. 8. Coming to the guilt of A-2, I have already come to the conclusion that the offence committed by A-2 is one punishable under section 34(h) and not under section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act. Therefore, I convert the conviction of A-2 from one under section 34(a) to one under section 34(h) of the A.P.Excise Act. 9. There remains the question of sentence. For offence under section 34(h) of the A.P.Excise Act, the punishment prescribed is imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Here the guilt of A-2 is, being in possession of Ganja which is an intoxicant in a quantity of 20kgs. The occurrence is of 31.5.1979 i.e. nearly 5½ years ago. Therefore, there isno use of sending A-2 to jail after this long lapse of time. It is submitted that he has under gone an imprisonment for about 10 days. Here the guilt of A-2 is, being in possession of Ganja which is an intoxicant in a quantity of 20kgs. The occurrence is of 31.5.1979 i.e. nearly 5½ years ago. Therefore, there isno use of sending A-2 to jail after this long lapse of time. It is submitted that he has under gone an imprisonment for about 10 days. I therefore, sentence A-2 for an offence punishable under section 34(h) of the Act to an imprisonment to the extent already undergone by him and also to pay a fine of Rs.600/- including a fine of Rs.100/-already paid by him. In default to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 months. 10. In the result, the Revision of A-1 the first petitioner is herewith allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against her is hereby set aside. In case the paid any fine imposed on her, the same is ordered to be refunded. 11. The Revision of A-2 the Second petitioner herein, is dismissed, except to the extent of alteration of the section of law under which he was found guilty and convicted and the sentence imposed by the lower court. Instead he is convicted under section 34(h) of the Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment to the extent of the period already undergone by him and also to pay a fine of Rs.600/-including a fine of Rs.100/- already paid by him. In other words, he has to pay a balance of Rs.500/- in default he has to undergo imprisonment for three months. Order accordingly.