Honble YAMIN, J.–This revision petition has been directed against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer dated 10.4.1991 by which he maintained the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Barmer for offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act. (2). Briefly stated, an information was received at police station Sedwa on the basis of which the Station House Officer alongwith raiding party reached the house of accused petitioner Pitamber Das on 14.10.1985. Station House Officer Gopal Singh, Head Constable Sawai Singh and Ladu Singh searched the house of the petitioner where opium was found in a `jhunpa in a `khokha. The opium was weighed. Its weight was 1kg. 30 grams of opium was taken as sample and the remaining 970 grams was sealed. Some other incriminating articles were also seized with which we are not concerned in this case. The sample was sent for analysis to chemical examiner and on examination it was found to be opium having 1.50% morphine. Case was registered at the police station and after investigation challan was submitted. Charge under Section 9 of the Opium Act was framed against the petitioner on 9.6.1987 and read over. He denied his indictment and claimed trial. Thereupon prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. Accused petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. He produced a witness in defence. Learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced him to nine months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. The same was upheld by appellate court. (3). I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record. (4). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of conviction passed by learned courts below is not sustainable as Gopal Singh PW-5 has filed the first information report and has also investigated the entire case. Relying on Dalip Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1), and Megha Singh vs. State of Haryana (2), he submitted that in such a case the investigation was held to be illegal and consequently trial was vitiated. He also submitted that the search made by police officers was in violation of provisions of Opium Act, 1878 and Section 165 Cr. Relying on Dalip Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1), and Megha Singh vs. State of Haryana (2), he submitted that in such a case the investigation was held to be illegal and consequently trial was vitiated. He also submitted that the search made by police officers was in violation of provisions of Opium Act, 1878 and Section 165 Cr. P.C. as the Station House Officer did not record in writing the ground of his belief specifying therein the thing for which search was to be made. He cited Mithukhan vs. State of Rajasthan (3), in which it was held that all searches under Sections 14 and 15 of the Opium Act are to be made in accordance with Section 165 Cr. P.C. which is mandatory and non-compliance of which renders the search illegal. (5). On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has tried to support the judgments of the courts below vehemently opposing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. (6). From the record it appears that it was Gopal Singh PW-5 who stated that on 13.10.1985 Sawai Singh Head Constable conveyed the message to summon him in village Jalila in order to take search. Thereupon Gopal Singh reached village Jalila alongwith some police constables. Gopal Singh stayed in the night at a outpost and on 14.10.1985 reached village Jalila again where Sawai Singh Head Constable met him and it was Sawai Singh who informed that he had received a secret information that Pitambar Das was engaged in smuggling of opium, arms etc. The witness further stated that he alongwith Nawab and Ismail went to the house of Pitambar Das where search was taken and opium was recovered. It may be stated that Nawab and Ismail have not supported the case of the prosecution. However, PW-3 Sawai Singh stated that he was incharge of the outpost Burhan being a Head Constable and on 13.10.1985 he received an information from a mukhbir in village Jalila that petitioner Pitambar Das was engaged in smuggling of opium. Then he went to the outpost of Border Security Force Bawari and informed the Station House Officer of Chauhtan on wireless to inform Station House Officer Sedwa who may come. He further stated that on 14.10.1985 he reached village Jalila were Gopal Singh Station House Officer alongwith other police constables had arrived. Then he went to the outpost of Border Security Force Bawari and informed the Station House Officer of Chauhtan on wireless to inform Station House Officer Sedwa who may come. He further stated that on 14.10.1985 he reached village Jalila were Gopal Singh Station House Officer alongwith other police constables had arrived. Sawai Singh gave complete information to Gopal Singh and then police party raided the house of the petitioner wherefrom opium was recovered. (7). From all this evidence it appears that no memo was prepared before taking search of the house of the petitioner. S. 14 of the Opium Act, 1878 provides as follows:- ``Any officer of the department of Central Excise, Narcotics, Drugs Control, Customs, Revenue, Police or Excise, superior in rank to a peon or constable, authorized in this behalf by the Central, authorized in this behalf by the Central Govt. or the State Government, who has reason to believe, from personal knowledge or from information given by any person and taken down in writing, that opium liable to confiscation under this Act is kept or concealed in any building, vessel or enclosed place, may, between sunrise and sunset.– (a) enter into any such building, vessel or place; (b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any other obstacle to such entry; (c) seize such opium and any other thing which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under Section 11 or any other law for the time being in force relating to opium; and (d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest, any person whom he has reason to believe to be guilty of any offence relating to such opium under this or any other law for the time being in force. (8). Section 15 of the Opium Act, 1878 provides as follows:- ``Any officer of any of the said departments may– (a) seize, in any open place or in transit, any opium or other thing which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under section 11 or any other law for the time being in force relating to opium. (9). Section 16 of the Opium Act, 1878 is very material which prescribes that all searches under Section 14 or Section 15 shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (10). Section 165 Cr. P.C. reads as follows:- ``165. (9). Section 16 of the Opium Act, 1878 is very material which prescribes that all searches under Section 14 or Section 15 shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (10). Section 165 Cr. P.C. reads as follows:- ``165. Search by police officer.–(1) Whenever an officer in charge of a police station or a police officer making an investigation has reasonable grounds for believing that anything necessary for the purposes of an investigation into any offence which he is authorised to investigate may be found in any place within the limits of the police station of which he is in charge, or to which he is attached, and that such thing after recording in writing the grounds of his belief and specifying in such writing, so far as possible, the thing for which search is to be made, search, or cause search to be made, for such thing in any place within the limits of such station. (11). In the case in hand Gopal Singh Station House Officer did not record in writing the grounds of his belief and specifying the thing for which search was to be made. This provision has been made as a check to the search as a copy of record made under this provision is to be forwarded to the nearest Magistrate empowered to take cognizance wherefrom the owner or occupier on an application may obtain a copy freely. This is a mandatory provision as per Mithukhans case (supra). So when the search was made but not in accordance with the provisions of Sections 14 and 15 of the Opium Act and in contravention of Section 165 Cr. P.C. the search is illegal. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for acquittal. (12). There is another aspect of the matter as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly it was Station House Officer Gopal Singh who lodged the first information report at the police station as is clear from Ex.P/7, the first information report. He returned to police station and lodged the first information report. Then he himself started investigation and recorded statements of witnesses. From the record it is found that site plan Ex.P/3 was prepared by Gopal Singh. Statements of Nawab and Shankar Lal which are respectively Ex.P/4 and Ex.D/2 were recorded by him. He returned to police station and lodged the first information report. Then he himself started investigation and recorded statements of witnesses. From the record it is found that site plan Ex.P/3 was prepared by Gopal Singh. Statements of Nawab and Shankar Lal which are respectively Ex.P/4 and Ex.D/2 were recorded by him. Statements of Baldev Singh, Gordhan, Kheta, Chhog Singh, Pema Ram and Moti Ram are also recorded by Gopal Singh during investigation. This shows that it was Gopal Singh who himself arrested the petitioner, recovered opium from him, lodged formal first information report of his complaint and being complainant himself he proceeded with investigation of the case. Honble Supreme Court in Megha Singhs case (supra) has deprecated that sort of investigation and has held that the police officer who lodged the formal information report should not have proceeded with investigation of the case. There is a reason behind it. Such practice should not be resorted to so that there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation. The complainant is always interested to see the success of his case and, therefore, he cannot be fair and impartial to the investigation. Rajasthan High Court in similar circumstances in Dalip Singhs case (supra) has held that this infirmity is bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case and the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction can certainly set aside the order if there is a miscarriage of justice. In Dalip Singhs case (supra) it was held to be a miscarriage of justice. (13). Consequently, the petitioner deserves to be acquitted. The revision petition is hereby allowed. Petition Pitambar Das is acquitted from the charge of Section 9 of the Opium Act. @CENT = @CENT =