JUDGMENT H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - Sub-Inspector Balbir Singh of Punjab Police was investigating a case under Section 363/366, I.P.C. in connection with the alleged kidnapping of one Kamla Devi. In connection with that investigation and accompanied by Smt. Kamla Devi and certain other persons, he reached village Asadpur in the district of Bulandshahr and on the point out of the lady conducted a search of the applicants house in the presence of certain members of the village community. A locked box, Ex. I, was recovered from a Kotha of the house and the applicant produced the key and opened it in the presence of the witnesses. Two country-made pistols and a number of live and empty cartridges, along with certain other articles, were recovered from the box. A recovery memo in respect of the same was prepared at the spot and signed in the presence of the witnesses. The recovered articles were sealed in separate bundles and were deposited by the Sub-Inspector Balbir Singh at police station Debai where he made a report. A case was registered on the basis of the recoveries at that police station under Section 19 (f), Arms Act against the applicant and. he was subsequently sent up for trial. 2. At the trial, applicant pleaded not guilty to the charge. He admitted that a search of his house was taken by Sub-Inspector Balbir JSingh, but denied that any incriminating article was recovered from there. He also pleaded that the house was in joint possession of his father and that the father of Smt. Kamla Devi had lodged a false report against him in Punjab due to enmity and was responsible for starting a false case against him. He examined one Hari Singh in defence who stated that the house which was searched belonged to Kanhai Singh, father of the applicant, and that applicant lives separately from him. He also asserted that no incriminating article was recovered on search from the house. 3. The case of the prosecution rested on the testimony of Sub-Inspector Balbir Singh, Smt. Kamla Devi, Pooran Singh and Suraj Singh, all of whom furnished evidence of the search of the house and the recovery of the incriminating articles in their presence. He also asserted that no incriminating article was recovered on search from the house. 3. The case of the prosecution rested on the testimony of Sub-Inspector Balbir Singh, Smt. Kamla Devi, Pooran Singh and Suraj Singh, all of whom furnished evidence of the search of the house and the recovery of the incriminating articles in their presence. The learned Magistrate, relying on their testimony and rejecting the defence evidence as unreliable, recorded a conviction of the applicant under Section 19 (f), Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years. On appeal the conviction and sentence of the applicant was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has raised the following contentions in support of this revision Firstly. that Balbir Singh being A.S.I. in Punjab Police had no authority to conduct a search in a village situate within the jurisdiction of police station Debai and, as such, the search was illegal. Secondly, that the provisions of Section 103 Cr. P.C. were not complied with, inasmuch as though two persons of the locality had signed the search, only one of them. Pooran, was produced in court in support of the prosecution and also because no copy of the list prepared was handed over to the applicant. Thirdly, that as the Sub-Inspector had not obtained a warrant of arrest from a Magistrate, the arrest of the applicant was illegal. Lastly, the learned counsel has strenuously contended that although the offence was committed on July 13, 1962 and the chargesheet was submitted on July 14, 1962, but, as the conviction in the case was recorded under Section 19(f), Arms Act, on April 1, 1963, after coming into force of the Arms Act 1959 on October 1, 1962, the conviction is illegal. I find no force in any one of these arguments. 5. It has come in evidence that Sub-Inspector Balbir Singh was investigating a case registered against the applicant under Sections 363 and 366 of the Code. It has also come in evidence that before coming to the village, he first informed the police at Debai and took certain constables from that police station and then came to the village and conducted the search. It has also come in evidence that before coming to the village, he first informed the police at Debai and took certain constables from that police station and then came to the village and conducted the search. It may be that the Sub-Inspector incharge of Debai police station was not available at the time, and if he would have awaited for him, the whole purpose of the search would have been defeated. There is nothing on the record to suggest that though the incharge of the police station Debai was available, Sub-Inspector Balbir Singh did not contact with him or that he refused to accompany him. 6. Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Code provides: "Whenever there is reason to believe that the delay occasioned by requiring an officer in charge of another police-station to cause a search to be made under sub-section (1) might result in evidence of the commission of an offence being cancelled or destroyed, it shall be lawful for an officer in charge of a police-station or a police officer making an investigation under this Chapter to search, or cause to be searched, any place in the limits of another police-station, in accordance with the provisions of Section 165, as if such place were within the limits of his own station." 7. I am, therefore, satisfied that the search conducted in the case was in accordance with the provisions of law. Moreover, it is settled law that an irregularity committed in conducting a search, unless it has resulted in prejudicing the trial, cannot affect the merits of the case. I 8. It has come in evidence that the search was conducted in the presence of two persons of the village, one of whom Pooran was produced in Court. Section 103 provides that the search should be witnessed by two persons of the locality. It does not make it incumbent upon the prosecution that those two persons must be produced in court. It is no doubt true that a copy of the list was not furnished to the accused. That, however, cannot invalidate the search, it being an ordinary irregularity curable under Section 537 of the Code specially when the applicant admits that the search was conducted in the house. It is no doubt true that a copy of the list was not furnished to the accused. That, however, cannot invalidate the search, it being an ordinary irregularity curable under Section 537 of the Code specially when the applicant admits that the search was conducted in the house. Offences under Sections 363, 366, I.P.C. and even under Section 19(f), Arms Act are cognizable and any police officer may arrest a person who has been concerned in any cognizable offence or against whom a credible information has been received of his having been so concerned, without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. Therefore, the contention that the arrest was illegal is wholly devoid of any substance. 9. The last contention of the learned counsel that because the Arms Act 1959 had come into force on October 1, 1962, therefore, the conviction of the applicant as recorded by the Magistrate on April 1, 1963 under Section 19(f), Arras Act is illegal is also wholly untenable. The offence was committed when the old Act was in existence and the prosecution of the applicant was launched in court when the new act had not come into force. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act inter alia provides that where an enactment is repealed then unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not "affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed." 10. The evidence produced by the prosecution in support of its allegations against the applicant has been relied upon by the two lower courts and their findings appear to be reasonable. I see no reason, therefore, to interfere with those findings. 11. This revision has no force and is dismissed. The applicant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He must surrender and serve out the sentence.