KRISHNACHANDRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave against an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench), by which a criminal revision filed by the three appellants was dismissed. The three appellants with five others were tried for offences under S. 4 of "The United State of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa (Madhya Bharat), Gambling Act, Samvat 2006", (Madhya Bharat Act No. 51 of 1949) (Samvat 2006) ). Krishna, chandra, the first appellant, was also tried under S. 3 of the Act. All the original accused except one were convicted under S. 4 of the Act and sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment. Krishnachandra was convicted in addition under S. 3 of the Act and sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment. The sentences in Krishnachandra's case were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) All these persons appealed unsuccessfully, to the Court of Session. The three appellants then filed a petition for revision in the High Court. The High Court also issued a notice under S. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to these appellants to show cause why the sentences passed on them should not be enhanced. The High Court by its order dated December 14, 1960, dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellants and in addition to the sentence of imprisonment imposed a fine of Rs. 200 on each count or counts for which they were originally convicted. The appellants asked for a certificate to appeal to this Court but it was refused by the High Court. The appellants, however, obtained special leave from this Court and have filed the present appeal.

(3.) Only one point has been argued before us and it is that S. 6 of the Gambling Act is ultra vires the Constitution and is against the principles of natural justice and the fundamentals of criminal jurisprudence. A similar contention has also been raised about S. 8 of the Act. The Madhya Bharat Act is almost a replica of the corresponding Indian statute. Though it differs slightly in its wording, the purport and intent is almost the same. There are three definitions in S. 2 of the Act which control the later provisions. The expression "gaming" is defined to include "wagering and, betting" and the explanation attached to the definition provides:-