Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.
1. Only a technical objection has been taken to the correctness of the convictions in this case under the Gaming Act, but I am afraid the objection has to be allowed. The warrant issued under Section 5 does not set out that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who issued it, had reason to believe that the house in question was being used as a ' common gaming house.' All that it states is that information had been laid before him that gambling was going on in house No. 67, Iyengar Street. It is only if there is a proper compliance with the terms of Section 5 that the presumption under Section 6 will apply. As a matter of fact, there is no proof in this case, apart from the presumption that can be raised under Section 6, that the house was used for the profit or gain of the person owning or occupying it. In the circumstances, the presumption does not arise and, in the absence of specific evidence, the convictions have to be set aside.
2. It is desirable that officers who issue warrants under Section 5 of the Gaming Act take good care to employ the language of the section in the warrants, provided, of course, they are satisfied on information received by them, that any place falls within the definition of ' a common gaming house ' within the Act.
3. The convictions and the sentences are set aside. The fines, if paid, will be refunded. The cash (M.O. 3) seized from the first accused will be given back to him.