1. The suit is brought to recover damages for the wrongful acts of Defendants (Respondents) in maliciously searching Plaintiffs (Appellants) house on 17th June 1907 in connection with a case of house-breaking and theft in 1st Defendants house. 2nd Defendant is the Police Inspector who conducted the search.

2. It is not argued before us that there is any evidence of malice on the part of the 2nd Defendant but it is contended that the search was illegal in certain particulars and therefore wrongful such as to give rise to an action for damages.

3. On the evidence before us we are unable to find any illegality in the search. The Inspector is said to have remained outside the house while the actual search was being made by two constables : and the learned vakil for the Appellant argues relying on the ruling of Boddam J. in Venkatappa Naidu v. King-Emperor (1907) 17 M.L.J. 323 that this was not conducting the search in person within the meaning of Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code. With all respect to the learned judge who decided that case we feel bound to differ from his view. We do not understand the section to mean that an Officer in charge of Police Station or invest