Judgment The petitioners in Criminal Revision Petition No. 302 of 1968 are accused 4 and 10 in Criminal Case No. 1209 of 1966 whereas the petitioners in Criminal Revision Petition No. 374 of 1966 are accused 1 and 2 therein. All the four petitioners were found guilty by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gadag, of the offence punishable under section 80 of the Mysore Police Act and each of them is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine, of Rs. 200 each in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The conviction and sentences were challenged by them in appeal before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwar. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentences passed against them and dismissed their appeal. It is the correctness of the order made by the learned Sessions Judge that is being challenged in these two petitions. The case of the prosecution against the four petitioners and others was that the Sub-Inspector of Police of Gadag got information that the house bearing C.T.S. No. 730/1 of Gangapurpet in Gadag Town was being used as a common gaming house for playing ‘under bahar’ game; that the said house was in occupation of A-14, and that A-14 was using the said house as a common gaming house for his own profit. The Sub-Inspector of Police gave a complaint on 24th May, 1966 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.W. 6, who was camping at Gadag at that time. The Deputy Superintendent of Police administered oath to the Sub-Inspector of Police and after making such enquiries as are necessary, issued a warrant Exhibit 80. The Sub-Inspector of Police armed with the warrant raided the house in question along with Panchas and Police Constables at about 12-30 p.m. or 1-00 p.m. on 5th June, 1966 and found all the 14 accused present in the upper storey of the house, and playing with cards a game called ‘ander bahar’. At the time of the raid A-1 was dealing the cards, A-14 had a wooden box by his side, the playing cards were lying in the midst of the accused persons, there was money in the wooden box, there was money also kept in front of each accused and each accused had money in his packet. All the articles were seized under panchanama Exhibit 81. All the articles were seized under panchanama Exhibit 81. All the accused were arrested and were subsequently released on bail. After completing investigation, a charge-sheet against the 14 accused was placed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gadag, for offences punishable under sections 79(b) and 80 of the Mysore Police Act. The petitioners and some of the accused denied the commission of the offence alleged against them. The learned Magistrate on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, found A-14 guilty of the offence punishable under section 79(b) of the Mysore Police Act, and convicted and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The other accused were convicted for an offence punishable under section 80 of the Mysore Police Act and were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 200, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. We are not concerned with the conviction and sentence passed against A-14 since he has not challenged the same. Mr. Moogi, the learned Counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Revision Petition No. 302 of 1968, submitted that the warrant issued in this case is an illegal warrant, and, therefore, the whole proceedings being illegal the conviction of the petitioners cannot be sustained. He also contended that the panchanama suffers from serious infirmity, in that, one of the panchayatdars is a person who had been convicted thrice under the Prohibition Act, and, therefore, the Panchanama has no sanctity. He also contended, as another branch of his first argument, that the complaint made in this case is by the Sub-Inspector of Police and hence the investigation of the offence ought not to have been entrusted to him. On these submissions, he contended that the conviction of his clients cannot be sustained and they must be acquitted. Mr. Swami, the learned Counsel for petitioners in Criminal Revision Petition No. 374 of 1968, in addition to the above submissions stated that the prosecution has failed to establish that the house in the occupation of A-14 was a common gaming house. It is on these submissions it is contended that the conviction and sentences of the petitioners’ must be set aside. It is on these submissions it is contended that the conviction and sentences of the petitioners’ must be set aside. I will first examine the contention relating to the validity of the warrant issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The argument is that under the Proviso to section 81 of the Mysore Police Act, no officer shall be authorised by special warrant unless the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Police or Magistrate or Superintendent Assistant or Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned is satisfied, upon a complaint made before him on oath and upon making such enquiry as he may think necessary, that there are good grounds to suspect the said building, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel, or place to be used as a common gaming-house. It is submitted that Exhibit 79 is not a complaint made by the Sub-Inspector of Police, but it is only a report made by him to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, and, therefore, the report cannot be treated as a complaint under section 4(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which defines complaint as, “‘Complaint’ means the allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action, under this Code, that some person whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but it does not include the report of a Police-Officer”. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that since Exhibit 79 was a report submitted by a Police Officer, it cannot be treated as complaint. He also submitted that a complaint as defined has necessarily has to be filed before a Magistrate and not before persons other than the Magistrate stated in section 80 of the Mysore Police Act, and therefore, if Exhibit 79 is not a complaint, thus the warrant issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police being without authority is illegal and all further proceedings taken there under must be treated as illegal. Now, it is to be seen that though under the Proviso to section 81 of the Mysore Police Act, the word ‘complaint’ is used, the said term is not defined under the Mysore Police Act. Now, it is to be seen that though under the Proviso to section 81 of the Mysore Police Act, the word ‘complaint’ is used, the said term is not defined under the Mysore Police Act. But, it is provided under section 2(24) of the Mysore Police Act that words and expressions not defined in this Act and which are defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1898 (Central Act V of 1898), shall have the same meaning as in that Code. Therefore, if the word ‘complaint’ used in section 81 of the Mysore Police Act bears the same meaning as defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure, then the learned Counsel submits that such a complaint could be made only to the Magistrate and not any other officer. Mr. Dayanand appearing for the State Public Prosecutor however contends that it is true that the word ‘complaint has been used in section 81 of the Mysore Police Act, but it is not used in the same sense as defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Otherwise, he submits, in no circumstances the persons mentioned in the Proviso to section 81 of the Mysore Police Act would be entitled to issue a warrant, and that could not be the intention of the Legislature. There is no doubt that there is some defect or infirmity which arises in view of section 2(24) of the Mysore Police Act, that the word ‘complaint’ must bear the same meaning as defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. But it would appear that the Legislature when it authorised the persons mentioned in the Proviso to section 81 of the Mysore Police Act to issue a warrant never intended to use the word ‘complaint’ in the Proviso in the same sense as defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, the complaint made to the Magistrate is with a view to taking action under the Code of Criminal Procedure , but the warrant to be issued by any one of the persons mentioned in the Proviso to section 81 is to take action under the Mysore Police Act. Therefore, though the word ‘complaint’ is used in the Proviso to section 81 , it is used in the sense of some reliable or credible information and not in the same sense as defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, though the word ‘complaint’ is used in the Proviso to section 81 , it is used in the sense of some reliable or credible information and not in the same sense as defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, Government might look into it and replace the word ‘complaint’ by some suitable term, such as credible information, so as to avoid any possible argument which, if accepted, might make the working the Act difficult. Further, Exhibit 79 is not a police report though made by the Sub-Inspector of Police, because as soon as it was presented to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, he administered oath to the Sub-Inspector of Police treating him as a complaint and made his endorsement. The administering of oath and the endorsement are found on the reverse of the document. The endorsement made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police shows that he verified the truth of the complaint and satisfied himself of the necessity of further enquiry, and he, therefore, issued a search warrant under section 81 of the Mysore Police Act to the complainant. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention that Exhibit 79 is a report made by the Sub-Inspector of Police. Therefore, in my opinion, the warrant issued is legal and there is no infirmity attached to it. Mr. Moogi, the learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that the warrant ought not to have been issued to the Sub-Inspector of Police who was the complainant, to investigate the crime. I do not think there is anything wrong in entrusting the investigation to the Sub-Inspector of Police who was the complainant. Then, dealing with his other submissions that the panchanama suffers from a serious infirmity, in that, one of the panchayatdars is a convict, it is true that one of the panchayatdars is a convict, but the Courts below have stated the same is an irregularity curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Police should have been more circumspect and should not have taken a person of doubtful character as a panch. But, this fact by itself would not vitiate the proceedings. Now, coming to the contention of Mr. But, this fact by itself would not vitiate the proceedings. Now, coming to the contention of Mr. Swami, the learned Counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Revision Petition No. 374 of 1968, that it has not been established that the house in the occupation of A-14 was a common gaming-house, in support of which, he has drawn my attention to the observation of the learned Sessions Judge in paragraph 11 of his judgment wherein he has observed that whether A-14 is running a common gaming house and derives thereby benefit is a matter within his knowledge and therefore, it is for him to prove it, that may not be a proper approach to the case. However, it is clear from the panchanama Exhibit 81 that gaming instruments such as money, playing cards and other articles have been attached from the said house. Therefore, under section 82s of the Mysore Police Act, it must be presumed that the house in the occupation of A-14 is used as a common gaming-house. In addition to this, a box having a slit was found in front of A-14, and it contained money. Therefore, the obvious inference is that A-14 who occupied the house was running a common gaming-house and was deriving profit by allowing the house to be used for gaming. Therefore, this contention also fails. These are all the submissions made by the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners. Since all their submissions fail, the order made by the Courts below cannot be interfered with. Therefore, both the petitions are dismissed. The petitioners who are on bail should surrender to their bail and undergo the sentence. S.V.S.-----Petitions dismissed.