person, animal, car vessel or other conveyance, about which he may have reasonable cause to suspect any liquor or intoxicating drugs to be concealed. When a search is made, the law requires that it must be conducted in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. S.99 of the Code says that the provisions in the sections enumerated therein shall, so far as may be, apply to all search warrants issued under the Code.S.100(4) of the Code enjoins a duty on the officer who makes the search to call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality to attend and witness the search. The decisions are a legion to the effect that mere non-compliance with the provisions will not vitiate the search unless prejudice is caused to the accused. But the wording of the proviso to S.36 of the Act is different. The words “persons called upon to attend and witness such searches shall include at least two persons” indicate the legislative insistence for strict compliance with the proviso. When the statute uses expressions such as “at least”, it must be understood that it denotes the minimum number requires for its performance when it falls below the minimum number the officer who makes the search has a duty to explain the reason for not adhering to the minimum requirement. If such explanation is acceptable to court, the seizure or search may not get vitiated. But no hard and fast rule can be laid down that, that non-compliance with statutory conditions will or will not vitiate the action made by the officer. In this case, if PW1 had a case that he actually called two witnesses, but only one of them responded or that he could find out only one person in spite of his efforts perhaps it could have been held that PW1 had complied with the requirement in the proviso. But, PW1 has no such case.”
