JUDGMENT 1. - By the judgment dated Nov. 14, 1979, the Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, has acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 4 (2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). This appeal has been preferred by the State against the said judgment. 2. The case is more than 13 years old. According to the prosecution, it was on June 29, 1976, that Shri Hari Singh, Station House Officer, Barllod, made a search of the house of the accused and found 29 bottles of liquor from the room in that house. 3. I am not pursuaded to interfere in this appeal. The delay apart, the Act itself now stands repealed. Moreover, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused on the ground that compliance of section 39 of the Act was not made and that the accused was not found to be in conscious possession of the battles in question. 4. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Shri Suresh Kumbhat, counsel for the accused respondent. I agree with the learned Magistrate that there was non-compliance of the provisions of section 39 of the Act. Section 39 empowers a Prohibition Officer or a Police Officer to enter and search any place and seize anything without obtaining a search warrant for the same, but, in doing so he is required to record reasons for doing so. In the present case, before entering into the house the Station House Officer did not record any reasons. Obviously, therefore, the learned Magistrate was right in holding that the search of house was without jurisdiction and vitiated the trial. The view taken by the learned Magistrate finds support from the Judgments of the Supreme Court in K.L. Sabaya v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 711 and State v. Rehman, AIR 1960 SC 210 . followed by this Court in The State of Rajasthan v. Poonamchand, 1981 RCC page 401. 5. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******