1. Upon the finding that the Sub-Inspector of Guntur conducted the search there can be no question of defendants jurisdiction over the place searched. The finding is objected to on the ground that no specific issue was raised on the point, but the plea that the defendant did not himself conduct the search, but only searched the house as the Sub-Inspectors assistant was specifically raised in the written statement and comes within the scope of issue I. Even otherwise it is questionable whether defendant, as investigating Police Officer, was not attached to Guntur Police station by the orders of his superiors but this point does not seem to have been considered.

2. The contention chiefly relied on by Mr. Ramadoss is that the search was wholly illegal inasmuch as Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not give authority to search for stolen property. This is a somewhat startling proposition put in this way, and it is based on the rulings in Bajrangi Gope v. Emperor (1910) I.L.R. 38 C. 304 and Prankhang v. King Emperor (1912) 16 C.W.N. 1078. These two cases were considered in Bissar Misser v. Emperor (1913) I.L.R. 41 C. 261 where it was held that they were only authorit