George Knox, J.
1. Kashi Nath and Raj Nath have been convicted of an offence under Section 3 of Act No. III of 1867. They appealed from their conviction to the Court of Session at Benares. The conviction was upheld, but the sentence modified. The case has come before me in revision, and I am asked to interfere with the conviction and sentence on the ground that owing to the Kotwal of Benares having endorsed a search warrant addressed to him under Section 5 of Act No. III of 1867 to another police officer, the warrant so executed was illegal, and the entry and search of the house in question were not such as to give rise to the presumption contained in Section 6 of Act No. III of 1867. It is further contended that the record does not show that the Magistrate who granted the warrant acted on credible information, and if so he had no jurisdiction to grant the warrant. From this it would follow that the police officer acted illegally in entering and searching the house, with the further result, again, that the presumption authorized by Section 6 could not be entertained by the Court. The warrant on the face of it contains an entry to the effect that the Magistrate acted on credible information; but it is contended that it is a printed form and that the accused has a right to demand that there should be on the record some material, which the appellate or revisional Court can see, and from which it can judge whether the information was in fact credible. In the present case I will not enter into this point, for I find, looking into the judgment of the appellate Court that the Magistrate who issued the warrant had a good deal of information from which he was authorized to issue the warrant that he did issue. Reference was made to several cases, namely, Queen-Empress v. Ram Bharose Weekly Notes 1890, p. 226, Queen-Empress v. Chiranji Weekly Notes 1891, p. 111 and Queen-Empress v. Yusuf Husain Weekly Notes 1889, p. 162. All these deal with what should be deemed credible information. As is pointed out in Emperor v. Abdul Samad (1905) I.L.R. 28 All. 210, the meaning of the words 'credible information' must in each case depend on its own circumstances. In the present case numerous circumstances have been pointed out by the Sessions Judge, and further, a large body of some thirty men who were found in the house in question, consisting, as that body did, of Brahmans, Ahirs, Sonars, Banias, Bharbunjas, common cultivators, shopkeepers, Manihars, and Kayasthus, points to the conclusion that they met for the purpose of gambling. I attach great significance to this fact also that a box was found containing money, and that the box was found under the feet of Kahi Nath and Raj Nath; so far as my experience goes it is a fair inference that the money which that box contained was for the benefit of the owners of the house.
2. Nor do I think that there is much force in the other contention. The learned Counsel who appears for the accused argued that the warrant was one that was issued, not under the Code of Criminal Procedure, but under Act No. III of 1867, and so it could not have been passed on by the officer to whom it was granted to another officer. I, however, find nothing in Act No. III of 1867, which would prevent the passing on of the warrant to another officer, provided always that such latter officer was not of a rank below the rank authorized under the Act to enter and search. It is not contended that the officer who executed the warrant was below the rank of officer who could execute a warrant under Act No. III 1867. That Act empowers a Magistrate to authorize any police officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector of Police to enter and search a house. There is no provision requiring the Magistrate to mark by name the particular officer who is to execute the warrant. The view I take is that warrants issued under Act No. III of 1867 are governed by those provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provide for the issue and execution of warrants in general. In that case there arises no such difficulty as that raised in the present case; the Code does authorize a warrant being passed on to another officer for execution. I dismiss the application.