JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378(3)(I) Cr. PC against the judgment, dated 20-9-1979, of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nasirabad, in case No. 372/1976. 2. It will suffice to state for purposes of this appeal that on February 16, 1976, at 9,00 p m. Head Constable Mohanlal received an Information that accused respondents were in possession of illicit liquor. Thereupon the Head Constable went to bus stand where he found the respondents sitting. On search, respondent Madan Singh was found to be in possession of one bag and a in container full of illicit liquor while respondent Sua was found to he in possession of two Jarikanes of illicit liquor. The respondent were arrested and after usual investigation, they were challenged in the trial court Charges under Section 54 of the Excise Act were framed against the respondents and prosecution examined five witnesses. After recording their statements under Section 313 Cr. PC in which they denied the allegations of the prosecution and hearing the arguments of both the sides, the trial court acquitted the respondents. The acquittal was on technical ground that the Head Constable Mohanlal was not competent under Section 45 of the Excise Act to arrest and detain the accused persons. ' 3. None has appeared on behalf of the State nor any lawyer has appeared on behalf of the respondents. Due to non-availability of lawyers for last about one month, it is not possible to appoint any Amicus Curiae to represent the accused respondents. I have gone through the judgment of trial court, memo of appeal filed on behalf of the State and also the evidence and documents on record. 4. The main ground raised in the appeal is that the trial court committed error in wrongly construing Section 45 of the Excise Act and ignoring the State notification No. F. 1(52) E.T./61 dated 9-9-1961 RGG(l) V-C, dated 26th October, 1961. It has been urged that the trial court relied on an authority of Allahabad High Court, reported in 1965 A.L.J. 20, which related to State of U.P. and there may have been a separate notification for that State. The contention of the State is that the Head Constable as per the notification mentioned above is authorised to search and seize the illicit liquor and arrest the person, found in possession of the same. The contention of the State is that the Head Constable as per the notification mentioned above is authorised to search and seize the illicit liquor and arrest the person, found in possession of the same. It is further urged that the offence under Section 54 of the Excise Act is fully proved against the respondent. 5. To appreciate the ground raised on behalf of the State, it is desirable to reproduce Section 45 of the Rajasthan Excise Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). "45. Power of arrest, seizure and detention: Any officer of the Excise Police, Salt, Customs (Narcotics) or Land Revenue Department, not below such rank and subject to such restrictions as the (State Government) may prescribe, and any other person duly empowered in this behalf may arrest without warrant, any person found committing an offence punishable under this Act and may seize, and detain any excisable article or other article which be has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act or other law for the time being in force relating to excise revenue, and search any person upon whom and any vessel, raft vehicle animal package, receptable or covering in or up on which, he may have reasonable cause to suspect any such article to be." 6. The State in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10 of the Act has issued the Notification No. F. 1 (52) E and T/61, dated 2-9-1961 RGG(I) V-C, dated 26-10-1961, which is as under "Notification No. F. 1(52) E and T/61, dated 9-9-1961. RGG(1)V C, dated 26-10-1961." In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (Act No. 11 of 1950), and in supersession of this Department Notification No. F. 49(1) SR/50, dated 15th May 1951 published in the Rajasthan Gazette, the State Government hereby order that the officers of Police and Revenue Department not below the rank specified here under shall exercise the powers and perform the duties under the sections mentioned against them. 1. Naib Tehsildar Revenue and above Section 47 2. Sub-Inspector of Police Sections 44 3. All Officers of Police and Revenue including Constables Chowkidars and Patwaris 7. 1. Naib Tehsildar Revenue and above Section 47 2. Sub-Inspector of Police Sections 44 3. All Officers of Police and Revenue including Constables Chowkidars and Patwaris 7. A bare reading of Section 45 of the Act shows that the power of arrest is to be given by the State to any such officer, whom it deems it fit and in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 10 of the Act, the notifications mentioned above were issued in which Item No. 3 shows that all officers of Police including Constables were authorised to exercise the powers given under Section 45 of the Act. In this case the search, seizure of the illicit liquor and arrest was done by Head Constable who was evidently authorised to do so as is clear from the notifications mentioned above. The trial court placed reliance on the authority reported in 1965 ALJ 20, in which it has been observed that the power of search, seizure and arrest is to be exercised by an officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police. How ever, this is not the position in the State of Raj. as as is evident from the law discussed above. I, therefore, hold that Head Constable Mohan Lal was fully authorised to search, seize the illicit liquor and arrest the respondents who were found in possession of the same. The trial court has also held that it is proved from the evidence of the prosecution that the accused respondents were found to be in possession of illicit liquor then the search was conducted by Head Constable Mohan Lal. The trial court acquitted the accused respondents only on the technical ground that the Head Constable was not authorised to conduct search, seize the illicit liquor and arrest the persons found in possession thereof. 8. The offence is said to have been committed as early as Feb. 16, 1976, i.e. nearly 12 years from today. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am, therefore, of the opinion that the ends of justice shall be met if the accused respondents are sentenced to the imprisonment already undergone. 9. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The judgment of the trial court is set aside. How ever, since the accused respondents have been sentenced to imprisonment already undergone, therefore, they need not surrender to their bail bonds.Appeal allowed. *******