JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition under section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 11.7.1988 passed by the learned Sessions.Judge, Sirohi whereby he set aside the order dated 18.3.1985 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road. 2. The only point which arises for determination in this revision petition is whether the learned Magistrate was right in ordering that no charge can be framed in respect of the alleged recovery made from the possession of the accused in pursuance of the information furnished by him to the ASI Laxmansingh ? 3. In this respect, the learned Magistrate referred to the Notification dated 26.10.1961 issued by the State Govt. under section 45 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act') but wrongly interpreted the same. For convenience, the said Notification dated 26.10.1961 issued by the State Govt. under section 45 of the Act is quoted here in extenso : "In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (Act II of 1950) and SR/50 dated the 15.5.1951 published in the Rajasthan Gazette Vol. III, Pt. 1 of 1951, the State Govt. hereby orders that the Officers of Police and Revenue Department not below the rank specified hereunder 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, 47, 67(1)(a) except in respect of retail licences granted for sale of liquor under the Act. 3. All Officers of Police and Revenue including constables, chowkidars and Patwaris : Section 45, except in respect of the retail licences granted for sale of liquor under the Act. 4. From the perusal of the above notification and in particularly item No. 3, it is clear that power under section 45 of the Act has been conferred on all the Officers of Police and revenue including constables, chowkidars and Patwaris. Thus, in view of this clear authorisation, the recovery made by ASI Laxmansingh cannot be impeached on the ground that he was not authorised under section 45 of the Act to have made the above seizure. In these circumstances the learned Magistrate committed a grave error in not framing the charge in respect of the above recovery against the petitioner. 5. In these circumstances the learned Magistrate committed a grave error in not framing the charge in respect of the above recovery against the petitioner. 5. In this view of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge was right in reversing the above order of the learned Magistrate. 6. For the above reasons, I find no force in this revision petition and it is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******