JUDGMENT-This revision is by two out of the five accused who were convicted by the trial Magistrate and sentenced to different sentences. The accused No. 1 Harilal Kachodimal Joshi was convicted for the offence under section 4 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 200, in default of which he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment - for a period of one and half months. The accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were found guilty for offences under section 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month each and a fine of Rs. 200 each. In default of payment of fine, each of them was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one and half months. 2. All the accused filed appeal before the Sessions Judge, Buldana and in appeal the convictions of all the accused were maintained. As regards the sentences, the sentences of the first two accused, namely, the present applicants, were maintained, but so far as the accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are concerned, their sentences of imprisonment were set aside and the sentences of fines were maintained. The accused Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Harilal and Shankerlal, have filed this revision against their convictions and sentences. 3. The prosecution case was that the Circle Police Inspector Kamthikar got information that gambling with cards was going on in the house of the applicant Harilal. He, therefore, approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for a warrant to search the house of Harilal under section 6 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act and obtained a search warrant under that section authorising him to search the house of the accused. The name of the applicant No. 1 is Harilal son of Kachodimal Joshi and he is a resident of Bajaj Ward in Gondia. That is the address which has been given by him in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. Exh. 13. The search warrant given to the Circle Police Inspector under section 6 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act authorised the Circle Police Inspector Kamthikar and his police staff to search the house of Hariram Kachodimal Agarwal, Bajaj Ward, Gondia. P. C. Exh. 13. The search warrant given to the Circle Police Inspector under section 6 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act authorised the Circle Police Inspector Kamthikar and his police staff to search the house of Hariram Kachodimal Agarwal, Bajaj Ward, Gondia. It is alleged by the prosecution that armed with this warrant the police party along with the panchas raided the house in Gondia. After the raid some articles were seized from the house. A seizure memo was prepared, so also a panchanama. The panchanama which is at Exh.4 states that on 30-12-64 the panchas were called by Sub-Inspector Pal and that they were informed that gambling is going on in the house of one Harilal son of Kachodimal Joshi, resident of Ansari Ward. Then the panchanama states that at about 3 p. m, they went to the house of Harilal and the house was raided by the police. At that time, certain amounts were seized from each of the five accused and it appears from the panchanama that the sums were recovered from them after taking the search of their persons. In this panchanama also it has been stated that an amount of Rs. 2.5 P. have been seized from Harilal son of Kachodimal Joshi of Ansari Ward, Gondia. The panchanama, therefore, clearly shows that the house which was raided was in Ansari Ward though the warrant was to search a house in Bajaj Ward and belonging to one Hariram Kachodimal Agarwal; whereas this house in Ansari Ward which is searched by the police party is said to be of Harilal son of Kachodimal Joshi. Some articles were also seized during the raid and a seizure memo is He stated at that time, which is Exh. 5. The seizure memo also shows that they were seized from the several persons mentioned therein who were said to be in the house of Harilal Kachodimal Joshi, Ansari Ward, Gondia. These two documents, namely, Exhs. 4 and 5, Panchanama and the seizure memo, make it quite clear that the house which was searched was in Ansari Ward, which is a different locality than the Bajaj Ward in respect of which the warrant was issued by the :Magistrate. 4. The lower Courts have proceeded on the basis of a presumption under section 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. 4. The lower Courts have proceeded on the basis of a presumption under section 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. If a police officer armed with a warrant under section 6 of the Act enters a house and after the entry finds therein instruments of gaming, then a presumption under section 7 of the Act is raised that the house entered is a common gaming house and the persons found therein are then present for the purpose of gaming, but the presumption under this section arises only where the entry is made under a valid warrant under section 6 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. It is contended on behalf of the accused that the entry in the house is illegal as there was no warrant authorising the police officer to enter this house which has been entered and searched by the police party. It is, therefore, contended that no presumption under section 7 of the Act can be raised, and if no such presumption can be raised and there is no other evidence to hold the accused guilty of the offence besides the presumption, the accused are entitled to be acquitted. 5. This argument of the learned counsel for the applicants is met by the prosecution that in view of the proviso to section 7 of the Act the presumption can be raised even though there is a defect in the warrant or order in pursuance of which the house has been searched. The proviso to section 7 reads thus: “Provided that the aforesaid presumption: shall be made, notwithstanding any defect in the warrant or order in pursuance of which the house, room or place was entered under section 6, if the Court considers the defect not to be a material one. " 6. It is true that under the proviso to section 7 every defective warrant or order cannot be ignored. But if the defect is a material one, then the warrant cannot be said to be a valid warrant and any search in pursuance of such a warrant and the finding of instruments of gaming on entry into such house will not raise a. presumption under section 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. But if the defect is a material one, then the warrant cannot be said to be a valid warrant and any search in pursuance of such a warrant and the finding of instruments of gaming on entry into such house will not raise a. presumption under section 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. The warrant or order is issued by a Magistrate authorising the police officer to search a house in respect of which there is some reliable information that it is used as a common gaming house. Therefore, necessarily the information in the possession of the police officer must be in respect of a particular house in a particular locality which can be identified. It is then in respect of that particular house or place that the Magistrate gives authority to the police officer to search on being satisfied from the material before him that the said house is being used as a common gaming house. If such a warrant is given then the search of that house in respect of which there was an information with the police authorities and which information was placed by the police before the Magistrate has got to be taken and search of no other house than that mentioned in the warrant can be taken. In the present case, we find that the house which was sought to be searched and in respect of which a warrant was asked for by the police officer was in Bajaj Ward, whereas the house which has been searched is in Ansari Ward, which is altogether a different ward in the town of Gondia. Besides this, we find that the name of the person whose house has been searched is also different from the one given in the warrant. It cannot, therefore, be said that this defect is not a material one. An altogether different house has been searched for which there was no authority to the police officer and the house in Ansary Ward which has been searched and from where articles have been seized was not the one in respect of which authority was given by the Magistrate and, therefore, the entry into the house cannot be said to be a legal entry under section 6 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. If the entry is not under section 6 of the Act, then the presumption under section 7 cannot be raised. If the entry is not under section 6 of the Act, then the presumption under section 7 cannot be raised. In this case, no presumption under section 7 of the Act could have been raised. The case has been decided only on the basis of the presumption under section 7 and as I have said above, if no presumption can be raised under section 7, the prosecution cannot be said to have established the case against the accused. The accused-applicants, therefore, could not have been held guilty of the offences either under section 4 or section 5 of the Act. The judgments of the Courts below are, therefore, liable to be set aside. 7. In the result, the revision application is allowed. The convictions and sentences of both the applicants are set aside and they are acquitted. Fines, if paid, will be refunded to them. The bail bonds be cancelled. Application allowed.