JUDGMENT :

RICHARDS, J.

1. This is an application in revision to set aside two orders of Mr. Harper, a Magistrate of the first class, Cawnpore, and an order of the Sessions Judge of Cawnpore, upholding the said two orders. The facts are shortly as follows:—On the 21st of January of the present year, one Nanhe Mal presented a complaint to Mr. Harper, charging Mul Chand, the applicant here, with an offence under section 409, Penal Code, 1860, the allegation being that he as manager or the managing director of a certain company in which Nanhe Mal was a shareholder, had misapplied funds belonging to the company. At the same time an application was made to the Magistrate to issue a search-warrant. In the order of the 26th of January of the present year, the learned Magistrate sets forth what he says, were the circumstances. He says:—

“On the 21st instant one Nanhe Mal came to court and presented a petition to the effect that his fellow-company director, Mul Chand, had committed criminal breach of trust as regards the sum of Rs. 90,000 and he prayed that criminal proceedings under section 409, Penal Code, 1860, might be instituted. He also presented an application stating that he would be able to prove his allegations if certain papers and books were procured, and he accordingly asked for a search-warrant for the Same. The applicant was represented by his counsel, Mr. Davies, Barrister-at-law. Mr. Davies addressed the court and stated that it was necessary to issue the search-warrant with all possible speed and secrecy, or there was otherwise no chance of the books being obtained. He also urged that as the complainant's statement, if recorded, would have to be made in the Vernacular, the court attendants would be able to convey to the accused Mul Chand information of what was impending. The court, accordingly, agreed to treat, for the time being, the petition filed as information and not as a complaint and to issue the search-warrant on the strength of the same, a procedure provided for by the terms of the search-warrant given in the schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

2. The learned Magistrate concludes his order by stating: “I considered I was entitled to treat the allegations made as reasonable information within the terms of the section;” Evidently what the learned Magistrate means is that he considered himself entitled to treat the allegations in the complaint coupled with the allegations made by the counsel as reasonable information. This order which I have just now quoted was an order made by the Magistrate on an application to set aside the search warrant, which he had already granted on the 21st of January.

3. The warrant of the 21st of January was addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Cawnpore, and was in the following terms:

“Whereas information has been laid before me of the suspected commission of the offence of criminal breach of trust, and it has been made to appear to me that the production of the papers and books mentioned below is essential to the enquiry about to be made into the said suspected offence, this is to authorize and require you to search et cetera”

4. At the end of the warrant is a list of the books and documents. It appears from the petition in the present application that at the date when the search-warrant was issued Mul Chand was away from home. The search-warrant was executed in his absence. From the report of the police officer it appears that the search was conducted in the presence of Mr. Lilly, Mr. Biddel and five other persons, one being the son and another the servant of Mul Chand. Some of the persons in whose presence the search was carried out were undoubtedly there in the interests of the complainant. The police report mentions that as it was impossible to break open the safes the police officer had to leave them with a seal placed on the lot in the charge of three constables. Mul Chand made two applications to the Magistrate to set aside the search-warrant and to get back his book