1. The ground on which this rule was issued was that the search was not conducted in accordance with law, inasmuch as the search witnesses do not come from the same locality and as such the conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. The conviction was under the Excise Act, and the offence charged was being in possession of illicitly distilled liquor. In the first place there is nothing in the record to establish the point that the witnesses do not come from the same locality. In the second place, even if they did not, we are unable to see how that fact by itself would entitle the petitioner to an acquittal. Conviction or acquittal depends upon the credibility of the witnesses as assessed by the Court and not on the question whether their presence on the scene of the alleged offence was in accordance with a particular legal procedure. This rule must accordingly be discharged. The petitioner must surrender to his bail and serve out the remainder of his sentence.
2. I agree. In my opinion the ground on which this rule was obtained is fallacious. The failure to comply with the provisions regulating searches may cast doubt upon the bona fides of the officers conducting the search. But when once the evidence has been believed it is obviously no defence to say that the evidence was obtained in an irregular manner. There is nothing in the law which makes such evidence inadmissible.