B. L. YADAV, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 24/8/1984 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur dismissing the appeal of the applicants and reducing the sentence from 6 months to 3 months rigorous imprisonment in a case under section 60 of the U. P. Excise Act, (For short the Act. ( 2 ) BRIEF account of the events leading to the present revision is that the applicant along with 2 others were prosecuted for an offence under section 60 of the Act as recovery of 2 bundles of liquor was made near Amghat Bridge from Car No: U. P. L. 3552 occupied by the applicants along with 2 other accused. Owner of the said car was one Narain who has filed a separate revision. The applicants denied the recovery and alleged to have been falsely implicated. Learned Magistrate relying upon the statement of R. P. Bharti, Sub-Inspector of Police, P. W. 1 and other prosecution witnesses convicted the applicants under section 60 of the Excise Act and sentenced 6 months R. I. The appeal filed by the applicants failed except reduction in sentence as pointed out above. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants urged that in view of section 53 of the Act Police officer has been given power to make a search without a search warrant being issued from the Collector but that can only be done when there is no time to obtain the search warrant but there is a proviso added to section 53 to the effect that in such a case police officer shall before entering such place for search, record the grounds of his belief for the same. In the instant case nothing was done hence entire search was illegal and the applicants could not be convicted. Reliance was placed on K. L. Subbayya v. State of Karnataka. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the State on the other hand urged that the recovery was correct even without search warrant and the conviction was also correct. In the instant case nothing was done hence entire search was illegal and the applicants could not be convicted. Reliance was placed on K. L. Subbayya v. State of Karnataka. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the State on the other hand urged that the recovery was correct even without search warrant and the conviction was also correct. ( 5 ) HAVING heard learned counsels for the parties short question for determination is as to whether a recovery made without search warrant as required by section 52 of the Act would be correct and whether in view of section 53 it was imperative for the Police Officer or any Officer of the Excise Department to record grounds of such belief that in case he would have made efforts to obtain search warrant that would have delayed the matter and would have provided an opportunity to the accused to escape or conceal the evidence. ( 6 ) TO determine these two questions it is better to read sections 52, 53 and 60 of the Act together. Bare reading of section 52 of the Act indicates that whenever an information is received by any Police Officer or an Officer of the Excise Department that an offence punishable under section 60 of the Act is likely to be committed he must approach the Collector or the Magistrate to is me a search warrant. Section 53 provides that after the receipt of the information that offence under section 60 is being committed, search can be made without search warrant if the offence is likely to be committed in any place, and if the efforts are made to obtain search warrant that may provide an opportunity to the offender to escape or to conceal the evidence of the offence. Further there is proviso that even if the search is made by the police officer or an officer of the Excise department without obtaining search warrant in that event he shall record the grounds of he belief to the effect that incase he would have made efforts to obtain the search warrant, the accused would have got opportunity to escape or to conceal evidence of the offence. By reading sections 52 and 53 together it is manifest that procedure under section 53 of the Act is mandatory and In case search warrant has not been obtained under the belief that that could have provided an opportunity to the offender to escape or conceal the evidence of the offence in that event it is imperative upon the officer conducting the search that he must record grounds of his belief. The intention of the Legislature has been made manifest with use of the words record grounds of his belief. Not only belief but grounds of his belief also have to be recorded. In case this procedure has not been followed the search carried out the recovery made becomes contrary to the provisions of section 53 of the Act. ( 7 ) ARTICLE 19 of the Constitution of India safeguards the liberty of the citizen and that liberty can be curtailed only in accordance with the procedure established in law. In other words curtailment of liberty of any citizen is possible only after following procedure prescribed under law. Section 52 of the Act is such a procedure. In case this procedure has not been followed the liberty of the citizen cannot be put in jeopardy. ( 8 ) IN K. L. Subbayya v. State of Karnataka, (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, their Lordships of Honble Supreme Court while interpreting section 54 of Mysore Excise Act (Act No. 21 on 1986) which was parameteria to sections 52 and 53 of U. P. Excise Act, held that in case the Inspector who searched the car 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 proceeding to search the car and thus this would render the entire search without jurisdiction and as a logical corollary vitiates the conviction. ( 9 ) IN view of the discussions made hereinbefore I am of the view that entire search in the instant case becomes without jurisdiction and the conviction of the applicants under section 60 of the Act is vitiated and same cannot be sustained. ( 10 ) IN the result present revision succeeds and is allowed. Conviction of the applicants under section 60 of the Act is set aside. The applicants are on bail, they need not surrender. ( 10 ) IN the result present revision succeeds and is allowed. Conviction of the applicants under section 60 of the Act is set aside. The applicants are on bail, they need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. .