JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—The State of Himachal Pradesh has preferred this appeal from the judgment of acquittal passed on August 6, 1988 in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1988 by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba setting aside the conviction of Sudesh Raj and Madan Lai (hereinafter respondents), by his judgment dated 5-12-1987 in Criminal Case No. 222-1/87, under section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this case are that on January 9, 1985, A. S. I. Amar Singh (PW 9) alongwith a police party was returning back after patroling from Sultanpur, Chamba town. He organised a raiding party on receipt of information that the respondents were selling foreign liquor in a Beer Bar in Chowgan Bazar, Chamba. He also joined an independent witness, namely, Mohinder Singh (PW 1). The party then raided the Beer Bar and found Sudesh Raj, Salesman present there. On search conducted by the raiding party, one bottle of Foreign Liquor, Black Knight, two bottles of MMB Fine Whisky, half bottle of Old Monk, 1-1/4 quarter of Old Monk, 1/2 bottle of MMB Fine Whisky and 1/2 bottle liquor in Golden Eagle Bottle were found in the Friz of the respondents. After completing the codal formalities in accordance with law, the samples were taken and bottles and samples were sealed with impression H and the seal was handed over to PW I. The recovered bottles were taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ext. PA). On receipt of report of the Chemical Examiner, challan under section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act (hereinafter Excise Act) was laid by the police before the trial Court against the respondents. 3. The trial Magistrate found them guilty and convicted them under section 65 (b) of the Excise Act and imposed a fine of Rs 500 each, in default of payment of which, they were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 4. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge did not go into the merits of the appeal, but allowed it on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case. 4. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge did not go into the merits of the appeal, but allowed it on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case. The reason for holding the trial Magistrate to have acted without jurisdiction is that under section 75 of the Excise Act, no Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 61 except of his knowledge or suspicion or on the complaint or report of an Excise Officer, or on the basis of the complaint or report made by the Collector or even by an Excise Officer provided he had been authorised to make such a complaint or report by the Collector. The report of an Excise Officer as contemplated by section 75 must be a report different from a report forwarded under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reliance for his view was placed by the learned Sessions Judge on Suraj Bhan and another v. State of Haryana, 1981 Ch. Cr Cases 31. 5. It is this view of law which calls for determination in the present appeal. 6. In my view, the learned Sessions Judge seems to me to have failed to consider the language of section 71 of the Excise Act in its proper perspective. This Section is in the following terms :— "71. Report by Investigation Officer for Institution of Proceedings.— If on an investigation by an Excise Officer empowered under section 46 sub-section (1) it appears that there is sufficient evidence to justify the prosecution of the accused, the Investigating Officer, unless he submits the case for the orders of the Collector—under section 80, shall submit a report which shall for the purposes of section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 be deemed to be a police report to a Magistrate having jurisdiction to enquire into or try the case and empowered to take cognizance of offences on police reports." 7. It would be appropriate to notice the provisions of section 75 (1) of the Excise Act, which is in the following terms:— "75. It would be appropriate to notice the provisions of section 75 (1) of the Excise Act, which is in the following terms:— "75. Cognizance of Offences—(\) No Magistrate shall take cognizance of an offence punishable:— (a) under section 61 or section 66, except on his own knowledge or suspicion or on the complaint or report of an Excise Officer, or (b) under sections 62, 63, section 64, section 65, section 68 or section 70, except on the complaint or report of the Collector or an Excise Officer authorised by him in that behalf." 8. Under section 75, cognizance of an offence under section 61 of the Act can be taken by the Magistrate, inter alia, on the report of an Excise Officer. It is common ground and not disputed at the Bar that every police officer of the rank of Head Constable and any rank superior thereto in the State of Himachal Pradesh is an Excise Officer, by virtue of Order VI of Himachal Pradesh (Excise Powers and Appeal) Orders, 1965 dated 7th August, 1965 issued by the State Government. In this Order, an Excise Officer of the 1st Class is empowered to investigate the case under section 46 of the Excise Act. Now, if that be the position, then it is not under-stood how a report made by A. S. I. Amar Singh, who is also invested with the powers of an Excise Officer under section 71 can be considered not to fall within the purview of section 75. This precise point was raised and decided in favour of the State by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Court on Us own motion v. Charan Singh and another, 1986 (2) CLR 577. Para 8 of this decision reads thus:— "8. The very question cropped up before another Division Bench of this Court in Darshan Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1971 PLR 942. The Division Bench after an exhaustive review of the relevant provision of the Act held that under the provisions of Punjab Excise Powers and Appeal Order every police officer of the rank of Head Constable or above was invested with the powers of first class Excise Officer which, inter alia, included powers to investigate under section 46 of the Excise Act. A perusal of the provisions of section 71 of the Excise Act showed that an Investigating Officer empowered under section 46 of the Act, was duty bound to submit a report to a Magistrate having jurisdiction to enquire into or try the case regarding an excise offence in which it appeared to such an excise officer that there was sufficient evidence to justify the prosecution of the accused. So far the purposes of section 75 of the Act, a police officer would be considered an Excise Officer and consequently on his report the Magistrate would be competent to take cognizance of an offence under the Excise Act." 9. In the light of the above discussion, the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in holding that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to hold the trial on the basis of the report under section 71 of the Excise Act. 10. The impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remitted back to the lower appellate Court to take it on its file by assigning original number and to decide it on the merits in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment, expeditiously. 11. The parties are directed through their counsel to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba on 20-8-1993. 12. The records of the courts below be sent to the learned Sessions Judge immediately. Order accordingly. -