Knox, J.:— Jhunni Bakkal has been convicted of an oftence under section 3, read with section 15, of Act No. III of 1867 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months. In revision it is contended that the Courts below have, with regard to him, acted upon the presumption contained in section 6 of Act No. III of 1867, and that as the warrant Under which the house in which the gambling was carried on was not searched under a properly authorised search warrant, the inference that it was a common gaming house cannot be drawn merely from finding instruments of gaming in the house.
2. The warrant is on the record. In other respects no exception is taken to it, but it is urged that the house entered in the warrant is described as “house No. 169 belonging to Jhunni Bakkal, mohalla Baniapara.” The house that was searched is the house No. 169 occupied by Jhunni, mohalla Shahnathan. There is a map on the re-cord, which is sworn to, and from that map it appears that the house No. 169 Shahnathan is separated only by a road and drain from house No. 170 which does belong to Jhunni Bakkal. There is also evidence on the record that mohallas Shahnathan and Baniapara are adjoining mohallas. I am satisfied from the evidence that the house which the District Superintendent of Police, Meerut, intended should be searched was house No. 169 mohalla Shahnathan the house in fact searched, Jhunni in his examination admits that the house No. 169 was at the time of the search the house occupied by him. I am of opinion that the wrong connotation given to house No. 169, viz, that it is a house in mohalla Baniapara, is under the circumstances merely a misdescription which does not vitiate the warrant, the more so as it is in evidence that the numbers in mohalla Baniapara do not run as high as No. 169. The main question which we have to see is what house was the house concerning which information was given and search of which was intended. On both these points it is in my opinion shown by the evidence that the house was the house searched. As regards sentence this being the first time “Jhunni has suffered imprisonment for gambling, I think a sentence of six week's rigorous imprisonment will suffice. The sentence already undergone will be deemed part of this sentence. I alter the sentence to a sentence for a term of six weeks.