AIKMAN, J. 1. In this case one Moti Singh was convicted of being the owner of a house which he used as a common gaming house and was sentenced to 3 months' rigorous imprisonment under section 3, Act III of 1867. He was further convicted of being found present in his house for the purpose of gaming and received a similar sentence under section 4 of the Act. He was also convicted of assaulting the police when they entered his house and sentenced to 3 months' rigorous imprisonment under section 352 of the Penal Code, 1860. All these sentences were to run concurrently. At the same trial his son, Ram Sarup, was convicted under section 4 of being found in a common gaming house and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25. Ram Sarup was also convicted under section 352 and sentenced to 3 months' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal the sentences imposed on Moti Singh were reduced to one month's simple imprisonment. The conviction of Ram Sarup under the Gambling Act was set aside and the sentence imposed under section 352 was reduced to one month's rigorous imprisonment. This is an application for the revision of the order of the appellate court. In my opinion the convictions of Moti Singh under the Gambling Act must be set aside. The Court below held that the house of Moti Singh was not duly entered and searched under the provisions of section 5 of the Act owing to the fact that the police officer, who issued the warrant, had no authority to issue it, and that, consequently, the presumption referred to in section 6 of the Act, which arises when instruments of gaming are found in a house duly searched, did not arise in this case. The learned Magistrate, who has written an excellent judgment, rightly held that the fact that the house was a gaming house can be proved aliunde. 2. The witness on whose evidence he relies to prove this fact was one Makund Ram, who was sent up as an accused person along with the applicants. Had the house been entered under the provisions of Act No. III of 1867, it would have been legal to take Makund Ram from the dock and examine him as a witness under sections 10 and 11 of the Act. Had the house been entered under the provisions of Act No. III of 1867, it would have been legal to take Makund Ram from the dock and examine him as a witness under sections 10 and 11 of the Act. In the present case on the findings of the Magistrate, the house was not entered under the provisions of the Act, but contrary to these provisions. The police, when they entered the house, were trespassers. I know of no provision of law which would justify the action of the Magistrate in making Makund Ram a witness in this case, other than those to be found in the Act. As the Act does not justify the Magistrate's action, I hold that Makund Ram's evidence must be discarded. There being no other legal evidence sufficient for conviction, for the unsupported statement of another of the accused, upon which the Magistrate also relies is, not by itself, sufficient to sustain the convictions, it follows that the convictions of Moti Singh under sections 3 and 4 of Act III of 1867 must be and are hereby set aside. With regard to the charge of assaulting the police, it appears that the assault must have been of an extremely trivial nature. As said above, the police were trespassers, but notwithstanding this, they were, it appears to me, acting in good faith under colour of their office. The Civil Surgeon, who examined the policemen, alleged to have been struck, on the day after the assault, found no marks of injury on their persons, although he did find marks of injury upon the persons of the accused. Having regard to this I consider that the imprisonment which the applicants have already undergone, is a sufficient punishment for any thing they did. I reduce the sentences under section 352 to the terms of imprisonment which the applicants have already under gone. The result of this order is that applicants who have been released on bail are discharged therefrom and need not surrender.