Kanhaiya Lal, J.
1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Mainpuri in a case in which certain persons have been convicted of an offence under Section 4 of Act No. III of 1867, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10 each. It appears that on the 18th of October 1922 the Superintendent of Police received credible information that a common gaming house was maintained by Puttu Lal, son of Changi Mal, by caste (sic), resident of Mainpuri. Put-tu Lal was employed as a miscellaneous clerk in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri, but at that time he was on leave. The Suprintendent c f Police issued a warrant for the search of the house of Puttu Lal but omitted to get the boundaries of that house noted in the warrant or to enter to whom it was addressed. The caste of Puttu Lal was also misdescribed. The Sub-Inspector to whom the warrant in question was handed over waited for a suitable opportunity to make the search. On the 2nd of December 1922 he is (sic) to have received information from Sannu, an ekka driver, that gambling was going on in the house of Puttu Lal. He corrected the caste of Puttu Lal in the warrant with his own hand and went to the house of Puttu Lal and made a search with the result that certain instruments of gaming were found in the house and certain persons were arrested with money in their possession. The main question for consideration in the case was, whether the warrant of search was legal. There was a further question as to how far a presumption could be raised that the house in question was used as a common gaming house. The learned Sessions Judge finds that the warrant was illegal, inasmuch as the boundaries of the house to be searched were not given therein and it was not addressed to any definite Police Officer. He further finds that the caste of Puttu Lalas originally entered in the warrant was misdescribed and that the Sub-Inspector who executed the warrant was not authorized to correct it on his own initiative. Section 5 of the Public Gambling Act, No. III of 1867, provides that if the Superintendent of Police has reason to believe that any house is used as a common gaming house he may either himself enter, or by warrant authorise any officer of Police not below such rank as the Local Government shall appoint in this behalf to enter, such a he use and to take into custody all persons who may be found there and seize all instruments of gaming, moneys and securities reasonably suspected to have been used or intended to be used for the purpose of gaming, which are found therein. Where such a warrant is issued, the law raises a presumption, until the contrary is made to appear, that such house is used as a common gaining house and that the persons found therein are there present for the purpose of gaming.
2. The house in question was the residential house of Puttu Lal and h s brother. The erroneous description of the caste in the original warrant may not be very material, but the omission to address it to a definite Police Officer and to describe the house by its bound are esornumber renders the warrant vague and indefinite, and it cannot be said that under that warrant the Officer making the search was authorised to make it. The Suprintendent of Police says, that he does not remember who took the warrant to him for s gnature or to whom it was handed over by him. The warrant in question cannot, therefore, be regarded as legal and the presumption authorised by sect on 6 of the Public Gambling Act, No. III of 1867, cannot be raised. In fact Puttu Lal who was convicted by the Trying Magistrate on a charge of keept ng a common gaming house has already been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. The conviction of the other persons cannot, therefore, be upheld. The reference is accepted and the convict one and sentences passed on the applicants are set aside. The fines, if realised, will be refunded.