# Corn Products Re;fining Co v. Shangrila .Food Products Ltd. Sarkar]. I959 October zz. I959 M. N arasimhachar

- **Citation:** [1960] 1 S.C.R. 981
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1960
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 438 of 1958
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/corn-products-re-fining-co-v-shangrila-food-products-ltd-sarkar-i959-october-zz-1848
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
981
the appellant that the respondent's director told the
appellant's manager that the respondent had adopted
the name 'Gluvita' to indicate that in the manufacture of its biscuits glucose was used.
Those statements on behalf of th.e appellant are not denied by
the respondent. So, a trade connection between glucose and biscuits would appear to be established.
We are therefore of opinion that the commodities
concerned in the present case are so connected as to
make confusion or deception likely in view of the
similarity of the two trade marks. 'Ve think that_
the decision of Desai, J., was right.
In the result, we set aside the order of the learned
appellate Judges of the High Court and restore that
of Desai, J. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The
appellant will get the costs before the appellate
Judges in the High Court and in this Court.
Appeal allowed.
M. NAR.ASIMHACHAR
v.
THE S'rATE OF MYSORE
(B. P. SINHA, C.J., JAFER IMAM, J. L. KAPUR,
K. N. W ANCHOO and K. C. DAS GUPTA, ,TJ.)
State Seri•ice-Servant found guilty of various irregularities on
enquiry-Retirement on superannuation-Reduction of pensionRecavery of loss-Legality-Requirement of notice-Mysore Service
Regulations, arts. 294, 297, 2I6, 302, Rule 2(ii), Appendix AConstitution of India, Art. 3n(2).
The appellant was the Manager of a Mysore Government
Reserve Foodgrains Depot and was later on appointed Special
Revenue Inspector under the Assistant Director of Food Supplies.
He was, however, not allowed to join his new post and an order
•
of suspension was passed against him. Seven charges in respect
of various irregularities committed by him were framed against
him relating to the period when he held the former post. An
enquiry was held and six of them were found proved. A final
notice was served on him to show cause why he should not be
compulsorily retired and he did so.
In the meantime he reached
the age of superannuation and the Government passed the following order against him,-
124
1959
Corn Products
Re;fining Co.
v.
Shangrila .Food
Products Ltd.
Sarkar].
I959
October zz.
I959
M. N arasimhachar
v.
The State of
Mysore
982
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)]
" That Shri M. N arasimhachar be retired from service
from the date on which he attained superannuation and granted
under Art. 302(b) of the Mysore Services Regulations, a reduced
pension of two-thirds the amount to which he would ordinarily
be entitled in view of the irregularities committed by him.
(2) That the period of suspension be treated as leave to
which he is entitled.
(3) That the cost of 10,430 gunny bags found short be
recovered from him at the rate of eight annas per bag.
(4) That the leave allowances due to him, his insurance
amount and death-cum-gratuity amount, if any, be adjusted
towards the amount due to him.
(5) That the balance after adjusting the leave allowances,
insurance amount and death-cunt-gratuity amount, if any, be
recovered in monthly instalments by deducting fifty per cent.
of the pension as ordered in (i) above. "
Against the said order the appellant moved the High Conrt
under Art. 226 of the Constitution. His contention was that the
said order was contrary to arts. 294 to 297 of the Mysore Services
Regulations and its Revised Pension Rules and contravened
Art. 3rr(2) of the Constitution in that no notice thereunder had
been served on him. On behalf of the State it was claimed that
the said order was in conformity with the Regulations and that
Art. 3rr(2) had no application. The High Court found in favour
of the State and dismissed the petition.
Held, that the decision of the High Court must be affirmed.
It was not correct. to coritend that art. 297 of the Mysore
Services Regulations left the option with the public servant
whether or not to retire at the age of 55. That article is complementary to and must be read with art. 294(a) of the Regulation
which fixes the age of retirement for such servant at 55 and
empowers the Government to retain him beyond

## Text

S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
981
the appellant that the respondent's director told the
appellant's manager that the respondent had adopted
the name 'Gluvita' to indicate that in the manufacture of its biscuits glucose was used.
Those statements on behalf of th.e appellant are not denied by
the respondent. So, a trade connection between glucose and biscuits would appear to be established.
We are therefore of opinion that the commodities
concerned in the present case are so connected as to
make confusion or deception likely in view of the
similarity of the two trade marks. 'Ve think that_
the decision of Desai, J., was right.
In the result, we set aside the order of the learned
appellate Judges of the High Court and restore that
of Desai, J. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The
appellant will get the costs before the appellate
Judges in the High Court and in this Court.
Appeal allowed.
M. NAR.ASIMHACHAR
v.
THE S'rATE OF MYSORE
(B. P. SINHA, C.J., JAFER IMAM, J. L. KAPUR,
K. N. W ANCHOO and K. C. DAS GUPTA, ,TJ.)
State Seri•ice-Servant found guilty of various irregularities on
enquiry-Retirement on superannuation-Reduction of pensionRecavery of loss-Legality-Requirement of notice-Mysore Service
Regulations, arts. 294, 297, 2I6, 302, Rule 2(ii), Appendix AConstitution of India, Art. 3n(2).
The appellant was the Manager of a Mysore Government
Reserve Foodgrains Depot and was later on appointed Special
Revenue Inspector under the Assistant Director of Food Supplies.
He was, however, not allowed to join his new post and an order
•
of suspension was passed against him. Seven charges in respect
of various irregularities committed by him were framed against
him relating to the period when he held the former post. An
enquiry was held and six of them were found proved. A final
notice was served on him to show cause why he should not be
compulsorily retired and he did so.
In the meantime he reached
the age of superannuation and the Government passed the following order against him,-
124
1959
Corn Products
Re;fining Co.
v.
Shangrila .Food
Products Ltd.
Sarkar].
I959
October zz.
I959
M. N arasimhachar
v.
The State of
Mysore
982
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)]
" That Shri M. N arasimhachar be retired from service
from the date on which he attained superannuation and granted
under Art. 302(b) of the Mysore Services Regulations, a reduced
pension of two-thirds the amount to which he would ordinarily
be entitled in view of the irregularities committed by him.
(2) That the period of suspension be treated as leave to
which he is entitled.
(3) That the cost of 10,430 gunny bags found short be
recovered from him at the rate of eight annas per bag.
(4) That the leave allowances due to him, his insurance
amount and death-cum-gratuity amount, if any, be adjusted
towards the amount due to him.
(5) That the balance after adjusting the leave allowances,
insurance amount and death-cunt-gratuity amount, if any, be
recovered in monthly instalments by deducting fifty per cent.
of the pension as ordered in (i) above. "
Against the said order the appellant moved the High Conrt
under Art. 226 of the Constitution. His contention was that the
said order was contrary to arts. 294 to 297 of the Mysore Services
Regulations and its Revised Pension Rules and contravened
Art. 3rr(2) of the Constitution in that no notice thereunder had
been served on him. On behalf of the State it was claimed that
the said order was in conformity with the Regulations and that
Art. 3rr(2) had no application. The High Court found in favour
of the State and dismissed the petition.
Held, that the decision of the High Court must be affirmed.
It was not correct. to coritend that art. 297 of the Mysore
Services Regulations left the option with the public servant
whether or not to retire at the age of 55. That article is complementary to and must be read with art. 294(a) of the Regulation
which fixes the age of retirement for such servant at 55 and
empowers the Government to retain him beyond that age. What
art. 297 of the Regulations, therefore, really does, is to allow the
Government servant, in case the Government wants to retain
him in service even after the age of 55, to opt for retirement. It
does not affect the power of the Government to retire a person,
whom it considers inefficient for further service, at that age.
Rule 2(ii) of the Revised Pension Rules in Appendix A of
the Regulations which empowers the Government in special cases
to retire a public servant after he has completed 25 years' of
service or attained 50 years and has to be read as supplementary
to arts. 294 to 297 of the Regulations. does not mean that once
an officer has passed that age or completed the said period of
service, he must always be given 3 months' notice before he can
be retired even at 55 years or thereafter.
Article 302 of the Regulations specifically provides for
reduction of pension and leaves such reduction entirely in the
discretion of the Government. Rednction of pension does not
amount to reduction in rank, for the officer is not expected to
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
983
continue in service thereafter, nor is it one of the punishments
r959
contemplated by Art. 3n(2) and, consequently, no notice there-
-
1--
under was called for.
M. Narasimhaehal'
The proviso to art. 216 of the Regulations, which enables the
Government to recover any losses it may have incurred due to
the negligence or fraud of a Government servant, from his
pension and compassionate allowances, comes into force only
when the departmental proceedings take place after the "Officer
has given up service and can have no application to a case, like
the present where such pro.:eedings took place while the officer
was still in service.
Held further, that the appellant was governed by the
Mysore Services Regulations and not the Fundamental Rules of
the Government of India which did not apply to him.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal
No. 438 of 1958.
Appeal by special leave from the judgμient .and
order dated March 31, 1956, of the Mysore High Court
in Writ Petition No. 140 of 1955.
The appellant in person.
B. R. L. Iyengar and T. M. Sen, for respondent.
1959. October 12. The Judgment of the Court
was deliv:ered by
v.
The Stale of
Mysot1
W ANCHOO J.-This is an appeal by special leave
wanehoo J.
against an order of the Mysore High Court in a service
matter. The appellant was in the service of the
Mysore State. In 1951 he was the manager of the
Government Reserve Food-grains Depot at Pandavapura. He was transferred from Pandavapura on May
15, 1951, and handed over charge of the Depot tq one
Shri Srinivasachar. A report was then made by Shri
Srinivasachar that there was shortage of 27 pallas of
ragi in the stock handed over to him. Thereupon an
enquiry was held by the Sub-Division Officer. The
appellant was dissatisfied with the enquiry as according to him it had not been properly conducted. He
therefore complained against the Sub-Division Officer
and also brought it to the notice of the higher authorities that certain rooms containing stock of gunny
bags had been sealed and the seals were not allowed to
be broken till March 24, 1952, with the result that a
large number of gunny bags which were stocked there
984
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)]
•959
had deteriorated and had been eaten by white-ants.
M
N -. h h It appears that these preliminary enquiries went on
.
arasin1 ac ar .
v.
till August, 1952, when the appellant was appointed
The State of
Special Revenue Inspector under the Assistant Director
Mysore
of Food Supplies. He went to take over charge of the
new post in September, 1952, but was not allowed to
Wanchoo J.
do so by an order of September 12, 1952. He then
approached the higher authorities but was suspended
on December 29, 1952. On April 4, 1953, the following
charges were framed against him-
(1) that he had taken 11 months to hand over
charge of the Reserve Depot to his successor with a
view to concealing the irregularities in the management of the Depot ;
(2) that he had failed to hand over detailed charge
by counting the gunny bags;
(3) that he had failed to obtain specific orders of
the Amildar to stock the new gunny bags in the
mill and his object was to effect surreptitious sale of
the gunny bags ;
(4) that he had not maintained a regular account
in regard to the bags and that he had failed to get
them checked by superior officers to escape his
accountability for the loss of about 11,000 bags;
(5) that he had deliberately mixed husk with ragi
and thereby cheated government to the extent of 27
pallas of ragi ;
(6) that he had manipulated the account; and
(7) that he had failed to get the stock checked
every month by the Amildar and other superior
officers.
The appellant submitted a reply to the charges and
made several representations to various officers in that
behalf. Eventually he received a notice on November
23, 1953, from the Director of Food Supplies directing
him to appear in connection with the enquiry relating
to the shortage in the Reserve Depot. Subsequently,
an enquiry was held by the Personal Assistant to the
Director who made a report thereafter. Finally, a
notice was issued to the appellant by the Government
on December 30, 1954, that six of the seven charges
framed against him (except the charge relating to 27
!
,.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
985
pallas of ragi) had been proved on enquiry and he was
z959
asked to show cause within one week from the date. of M
N -. /ta&I•'"
the receipt of the notice why he should not be com-
· '":.•m
pulsorily retired from service, why the period· of
The s1aJ1 of
suspension should not be treated as such lea.ve to
Myso11
which he might be entitled and why the leave aUowances due to him, his insurance amount and 50 per
Wanehoo f.
cent. of his pension should not be adjusted towards
the amount due from him on account of the shortage
of gunny bags valued at Rs. 5,215.
The appellant
submitted a long explanation in reply to this notice.
In the meantime the appellant had attained the age
of 55 years. Therefore, the Government passed an
order on March 18, 1955, in the following terms-
" (I) That Shri M. Narasimhachar be retired from
service from the date on which he attained superannuation and granted under Art. 302 (b) of the
Mysore Services Regulations (hereinafter referred to
as Regulations), a reduced pension of two-thirds the
amount to which he would ordinarily be entitled in
view of the irregularities committed by him.
(2) That the period of suspension be treated as
leave to which he is entitled.
(3) That the cost of 10,430 gunny bags found
short be recovered from him at the rate of eight
annas per bag.
(4) That the leave allowances due to him, his
insurance amount and death cum-gratuity amount,
if any, be adjusted towards the amount due to him.
(5) That the balance after adjusting the leave
a.llowances,
insurance amount
and death-cum.
gratuity amount, if any, be recovered in monthly
instalments by deducting fifty per cent. of the
pension as ordered in (1) above."
Thereafter the appellant filed a petition under
Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court on
September 5, 1955. His main contention was that the
order of the Government retiring him was not in
accordance with arts. 294 to 297 of the RegulatiOns
and the Revised Pension Rules of the same Regulations. He also contended that the order of the
986
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)]
'959
Government reducing his pension to two-thirds of
M
N -. h h that to which he would be ordinarily entitled was
· "':'.'m ac ar invalid as it was not mentioned in the notice given to
The State of
him on December 30, 1954, and that this reduction of
Mysore
pension was violative of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. Finally he contended that the order of GovernWamhoo f.
ment treating his period of suspension as period of
such leave as might be due to him and recovery of
Rs. 5,215 from the amounts due to him from the
Government and his pension was illegal and arbitrary.
The petition was opposed by the State of Mysore and
its contention was that the order passed was strictly
in accordance with the Regulations and that in no
case Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution had any application and as such the reliefs sought by the appellant
could not be granted on a writ petition. The High
Court held that Art. 311 (2) had no application and
that the order passed by the Government was in
accordance with the Regulations and that it was not
possible to give any relief to the appellant.
Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The appellant
then applied for a certificate to enable him to appeal
to this Court, which was refused.
He followed it by
asking for special leave from this Court which was
granted; and that is how the matter has come up
before us.
There is no doubt that proceedings in this case began
in April, 1953, with the intention of taking disciplinary
action against the appellant and he was served with a
charge-sheet which was followed by an enquiry. But
the period taken by the enquiry which followed was
so long that the appellant attained the age of 55 years
sometime in December 1954. Consequently, the Government seems to have decided when it gave notice to the
appellant on December 30, 1954, to retire him . instead
of taking any other action against him. That is how
arts. 294 to 297 of the Regulations which deal with
retirement became relevant in thiR case. The contention of the appellant before the High Court was that
under the articles he was entitled to continue in service
even after attaining the age of 55 years and the
Government had no right to order his retirement on
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTt:l
987
attaining that age and that the option whether a
x95~
public servant will retire at the age of 55 years or not M Narasi lulchar
rested with him. The relevant article in this connec-
·
v. m
tion is art. 294, which is in these termsThe State of
" 294 (a)-A Government servant in superior or
Mysore
inferior service, who has attained the age of fiftywanchooJ.
five. years, may be required to retire, unless the
Government considers him efficient, and permits him
to remain in the service. But as the premature
retirement of an efficient Government servant
imposes a needless charge on the State, this rule
should be worked with discretion. And in cases in
which the rule is enforced, a statement of the
reasons for enforcing it shall be placed on record.
Note 1-It is trusted that the Heads of Departments will always be disposed to extend to this tule
a very liberal interpretation, so that the State may,
in no case, be deprived of the valuable experience
of really efficient Government servants by the
untimely exercise of the powers of compulsory
retirement on pensiorr;
•
•
•
Note 2-
(b)-These rules apply to all Government servants
without reference to their nationality.
(c)-Heads of Departments are authorised to
retire all non-gazetted Government servants under
them when they attain the age of fifty-five, and
to grant extension of service for a period not exceeding six months only in very exceptional cases if the
Government servant is considered to be efficient ari<l
such extension is considered absolutely necessary in
the interest of public service. In no case, extension
be given beyond six months without orders of
Government."
It is clear from this article that the age of retirement
fixed in the Regulations is 55 years and it is the
option of Gov,..ernment to allow a public servant to
continue in service thereafter if it considers him efficient.
It is true that Note 1 to this article enjoins on Heads of
Departments to be liberal in this matter.
But it is
clear that whatever may be the liberality exercised the
988
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1))
r959
age ofretirement is fifty-five years and continuation in
N -. h h service beyond that age is at the option of GovernM.
ar-.;:m ac ar ment. Article 294 (c) would also make this clear so
Th• state of
far as non-gazetted servants are concerned. Further,
Mysore
article 296 requires the Heads of Departments to send
to Government on or before the first of September in
Wanchoof.
each year a list of non-gazetted servants who will
attain the age of 55 years during the coming year and
also of those who have been given extensions of
service by them. This further enforces what is clear
in article 294 (a) that the age of retirement is 55 years.
Then comes article 297 on which the appellant mainly
relies; it lays down that a Government servant in
superior service who has attained the age of 55 years,
may'at his option retire from the service on a superannuation pension.
It is urged that this means that
the option is with the public servant whether he
retires at that age or not.
We are of opinion that
this is not the right interpretation of article 297.
Article 297 is c9mplementary to article 294(a), which
gives Government thE: power of keeping Government
servants in service beyond the age of 55 years. Article
297 allows the Government servant, if the Government wants to keep him in service after 55, to opt
for retirement. It does not mean that it is entirely at
the option of the Government servant to continue
beyond the age of 55 years and the Government cannot retire him at that age if he does not exercise the
option. Therefore, it was open to Government to
retire a Government servant at the age of 55 years if
it thought that the person was not efficient to be kept in
further service. In that view of the matter, the order
of Government dated March 18, 1955, by which the
appellant was retired from the date on which he completed 55 years of age was in accordance with articles
294 and 297 of the Regulations.
i
The appellant then drew our attention to Appendix A
(relating to the Revised Pension Rules under article
215) of the Regulations. Rule 2 (ii) of these Rules
~
provides that a Government servant may retire from
service any time after completing 30 years' qualifying
serv:ice: Provided that he shall give in this behalf a
notice in writing to the appropriate authority, at least
S.C.R.
SUPREME COUH.T REPORTS
989
three months before the date on which he wishes to
I959
retire. It further provides that Government may in A" N -~ h 1
· 1
·
G
.
".l.
aras 1m ac iar
specia cases require any
overnment servant to retire
v.
any time after he has completed 25 years' qualifying
The State of
service or on attaining 50 years age if such retirement is
Mysore
considered necessary in the public interest: Provided·
that the appropriate authority shall give in this behalf
Wanchoo f.
a notice in writing to the Government servant at least
three months before the date on which he is required
to retire. The appellant contends that this rule
required three months' notice to be given to him before
he was retired at the age of 55 years and as the
required notice was not given by the Government the
order relating to his retirement was not valid, being
against the rule.
We are of opinion that this again is
a complete misinterpretation of this rule. This rule
must be read as supplementary to articles 294 and 297
of the Regulations relating to retirement of public
servants. What it contemplates is that if a public
servant has completed 30 years' service though he may
not have attained the age of 55 years he can ask the
Government to retire him after giving three months'
notice. The rule further contemplates that Government may retire an officer after he has completed
25 years service or attained 50 years of age, i.e., before
he is normally due for retirement at the age of 55 years.
It does not mean that when once the officer is past the
age of 50 years or has completed 25 years of service he
must always be given a notice of three months before
he can be retired at 55 years or afterwards. This is a
special provision relating to those cases where the
Government wishes to retire an officer before the
ordinary age of retirement, namely 55 years. The
appellant therefore cannot claim that the order of
March 18, 1955, is illegal because it did not give three
months' notice. So far therefore as the retirement
Rules are concerned, the Government order retiring
the appellant is in no way against those rules.
Next the appellant contends that as his pension has
been reduced to two-thirds, he was entitled to notice
in view of the provisions of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution, before the Government decided to inflict that
12.~
990
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)]
I9!>9
punishment on him and that this was not done in the
MN -. ,
h
notice dated December 30, 1954. It is enough to say
.
arasim,.ac al' h
h"
.
v.
t at t IS content10n is also baseless. Article 3ll (2)
The State of
does not. deal with the question of pension at all; it
Mysore
deals with three situations, namely, (i) dismissal, (ii)
removal, and (iii) reduction in rank. The appellant
Wanchoo f.
says that the reduction in pension is equivalent to
reduction in rank. All that we need say is that reduction in rank applies to a case of a public servant who is
expected to serve after the reduction. It has nothing
to do with reduction of pension, which is specifically
provided for in art. 302 of the Regulations. That
article says that if the service has not been thoroughly
satisfactory the authority sanctioning the pension
should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks
proper. There is a Note under this article, which says
that the full pension admissible under the Regulations
is not to be given as a matter of course but rather to
be treated as a matter of distinction. It was under
this article that the Government acted when it reduced
the pension to two-thirds. Reduction in pension
being a matter of discretion with the Government, it
cannot therefore be said that it committed any breach
of the Regulations in reducing the pension of the
appellant.
Lastly, the appellant challenged that part of the
order of the Government which provided that a sum
of Hs. 5,215 be deducted from the amount due to him
and from his pension in monthly instalments. It is
enough to say that there is a provision in the Regulations providing for this, which is art. 216-A. Under
that article the Government reserved to itself the right
to order the recovery from the pension and com-·
passionate allowances of a Government servant of any
amount on account of losses found in judicial or
departmental proceedings to have been caused to
Government by the negligence or fraud of such officer
during his service. There is a proviso to this article
which says that departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty, shall not be instituted except under certain circumstances, which we
need not detail here. The appellant says that the
,.
I
\
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
991
departmental proceedings that took place against him
1959
should have been instituted in the manner provided
--:- h h
· th'
·
Th
·
£
·
h"
te t"
M.NaraS1m ac ar
m
1s proviso.
ere 1s no orce m t 1s con n ion
v.
because the proviso only comes into force when the
The state of
departmental proceedings take place after the officer
Mysore
has given up service. It does not apply to a case like
the present where the departmental proceedings took
Wam:hoo f.
place while the appellant was still in service.
Before we leave this case, we may point out that the
appellant contended that the Fundamental Rules of
the Government of India applied to him. This again
is wrong for what apply to him are the Regulations
and not th.e Fundamental Rules of the Government of
India.
We are therefore of opinion that there is no force
in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the -case we pass no order as to costs and
Court fee.
Appeal dismissed.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
v.·
REHMAN
(P. B: GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. SuBBA RAo, JJ.)
Criminal Trial-Search by Excise Officer-Failure to record
reasons-Search, if illegal-Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, (I of
r944), s. I4-Central Excise Rules, r944, r. 20I-Code of Criminal
Procedure, r898, (V of r898), s. r65.
I959
October I4
A Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise, on receiving
information that the respondent had cultivated tobacco but had
not paid excise duty thereon, went to search the house of the
respondent with a view to find out whether he had stored tobacco
there. The respondent obstructed the making of the search with
the result that the Deputy Superintendent fell down and was
injured. The respondent was prosecuted under s. 353, Indian
Penal Code, but was acquitted on the ground that the search was
illegal as it was made by the Deputy Superintendent without
"'--
recording the reasons as required by s. 165, Code of Criminal
Procedure. The appellant contended that s. 165 of the Code was
not applicable to a search under the Central Excise and Salt Act.
Held, that s. 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was
applicable to such a search also and the search being in contravention of s. 165 was illegal. Section 18 of the Central Excise and