ORDER
Reilly, J.
1. I do not agree with the contention that the warrant of distraint was illegal because it was not addressed to P.W. No. 1 by his personal name. It was addressed to him as “Warrant Officer Third Division” and though that is not a title appearing in the Act, there is no doubt that it was sufficient to identify P.W. No. 1 clearly. Nor do I agree with the contention that the distraint of the and a was illegal because P.W. No. 1 did not seize it with his own hands but directed P.W. No. 2, his peon, to take it. The fact that Section 353, Indian Penal Code, was not mentioned in the complaint is immaterial, as the facts alleged disclosed an offence punishable under that section. The only important point raised is that the and a was not an article which could legally be distrained, as it comes within the classification of “tools of an artizan” in Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This point was not raised in the Original or Appellate Court, and although an and a is said to be a vessel used in dyeing and the accused are dyers and weavers, it cannot be determined on the record mew whether this was a vessel in ordinary and regular use or could properly be regarded as one of their “tools.” This is a contention which should have been raised at an earlier stage, when it could have been determined clearly and easily. I am not prepared to interfere in revision on this account.
2. The petition is dismissed.
