JUDGMENT

Stuart, CJ - The applications in revision of four persons Saiyed Ali Abbas alias Banney, Nadir Agha, Mustafa-Hussain and Tasadduq Husain arise out of their convictions in connexion with a raid made by the officer in charge of the Lucknow Kotwali on the 23rd of May 1925. It appears from the evidence of that officer that he received information to the effect that there was a traffic in cocaine proceeding in a certain house in the city. In order to check the accuracy of this information he sent a man unnamed (who was clearly an informer) with three marked currency notes to purchase cocaine.

2. When the man came back with cocaine the officer proceeded to collect a larger party of police and others to make and raid upon the premises. He had under Section 53 of Local Act 4 of 1910 authority to search the premises without a search warrant, if he was satisfied that the-obtaining of a search warrant might well afford the offender an opportunity of escaping or of concealing evidence of the offence. It was, however, his duty before he proceeded to make a search-without a search warrant, to record the grounds of his belief that the offender was likely to escape or conceal the evidence of his offence before he made the search. I cannot find that this, officer did record the grounds of his belief in accordance with the procedure, although he clearly recorded in the police diary the fact that he was proceeding on his way to search the house. His omission to record the grounds of his belief, in view of the fact that he clearly stated his intention of making the search, would hardly amount to illegality, although it was certainly an irregularity. When the premises were approached the police officer put a ladder against the wall and 'sent up certain, constables to get into the premises and open the front door. Before the door was opened two men, the applicants Mustafa Husain and Tassadduq Husain, were seized by the police outside the premises and were found to be in possession of cocaine. After the front door had been opened Saiyed Ali Abbas alias Banney and Nadir Agha were found lying on two beds. Inside the pillow which was tinder the head of. Saiyed Ali Abbas was cocaine and under the pillow of the bed occupied by Nadir Agha was cocaine.

3. Upon these facts the applicants were convicted in separate trials by a first class Magistrate in Lucknow under the provisions of Section 60 of the Local Act to which I have referred There was one other conviction which has been set aside by the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge has made a modification in the sentences. The applicants stand convicted of offences under the Act. They were released by the learned Judicial Commissioner on bail and are on bail sit present. This is not a case in which any cause has been shown why I should depart from the usual practice of accepting findings of fact without demur. There are very occasional instances in; which in a criminal revision the revising Court is justified in examining the findings of fact and varying them, but this is not such a case. The evidence which was perfectly straightforward was believed by the Magistrate and believed by the Sessions Judge and I do not [propose to dismiss their findings as to its credibility, and it must be taken that cocaine was found on the persons of Mustafa Hussain and Tassadduq Hussain, was found in a pillow on the bed on which Syed Ali Abbas was lying and under a pillow on the bed on which Nadir Agha was lying. These men have thus clearly committed an offence under Section of the Act. But it is argued that the search of the house was illegal and irregular, and that the irregularities and illegalities were such as to vitiate the convictions. I can decide these points very briefly. There was no illegality. There was an irregularity on the part of the officer in not recording the grounds of his belief as to the necessity of making a search without warrant but this omission was of a very trivial nature in so far as an