JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan under section 378(1) & (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 5.12.1989 passed by Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Taranagar (hereinafter referred to as `the trial Court') whereby the trial Court acquitted the accused-respondent for offence under section 25(1) of the Arms Act (for short `the Act'). 2. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused-respondent and carefully gone through the judgment and record of the trial Court. 3. On 3.9.1985 a challan was filed against the accused-respondent by Police Station, Taranagar for offence under section 25(1) of the Act. On 20.6.1985 Excise Inspector, Rajgarh carried out search of house of the accused-respondent as the Excise Inspector had secret information that he was having possession of illicit liquor. On search, country made gun was recovered vide Exhibit-P/7. The accused-respondent was put to trial. The prosecution examined PW-1 Ranjeet, PW-2 Girdhari, PW-3 Dule Singh, PW-4 Sale Singh, PW-5 Shivprasad, PW-6 Prathviraj, PW-7 Kanarain, PW-8 Faiz Mohd., PW-9 Sohanlal and PW-10 Ridhu Singh. PW-2 Girdhari is witness to recovery (motbir), who has not supported the prosecution case. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence, reached to the conclusion that PW-9 Sohanlal, who carried out search of house of the accused-respondent was not authorised to carry out the search and effect the recovery of the gun. The trial Court further held that search was conducted in violation of Section 47 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. 4. Learned counsel for the accused-respondent contended that PW-9 Sohanlal, Excise Inspector was not competent to enter the house of the respondent and effect the search. 5. Section 47 of the Excise Act reads as under:- "47. Power of Excise Officer to search without warrant.-(1) Whenever an Officer of the Excise Department not below such rank as the (State Government) may prescribe has reason to believe that an offence punishable under this Act has been, is being or is likely to be committed in any place, and that a search warrant cannot be obtained without affording the offender an opportunity of escape or of concealing evidence of the offence he may, at any time by day or night enter and search such place : Provided that such officer shall before entering such place record the grounds of his belief as aforesaid. (2) Every Excise Officer as aforesaid may seize any thing found in such place which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act, and may detain and search and if he thinks proper, arrest any person found in such place whom he has reason to believe to be guilty of such offence as aforesaid." 6. I have carefully gone through the record of the case and more particularly the statement of PW-9 Sohanlal. This witness nowhere says that after receipt of the secret information, he carried out the search of the house of the accused-respondent. In his statement this witness nowhere says that he could not obtain search warrant because that would have amounted to opportunity of escaping by concealing the evidence by the accused-respondent. He neither said nor recorded the ground of such belief. Nothing has been placed on record by the prosecution for conducting the search without search warrant. The witness to recovery PW-2 Girdhari has not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on judgments of this Court in Mool Chand & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, RLW 1990(2) 558 and Jagdish Prasad Bishnoi v. The State of Rajasthan, RLW 1991 (1) 23 , wherein this Court held that provisions of Section 47 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 are mandatory and conviction cannot be based on the basis of search carried out in violation of Section 47 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. In this view of the matter, I find no error in the judgment of the trial Court acquitting the respondent.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this criminal appeal filed by the State fails and is dismissed. Bail and surety bonds are discharged.Appeal dismissed. *******