STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. K SATYNARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Andhra Pradesh appeals by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in which, accepting a reference by the Sessions Judge, the conviction of the respondents under Ss. 4 and 5 of the Hyderabad Gambling Act (2 of 1305 F) ordered by the 5th City Magistrate at Secunderabad has been set aside.

(2.) The short question in this case is whether the premises of a Club known as the "Crescent Recreation Club" situated in Secunderabad were being used as a common gambling house and whether the several respondents who were present at the time of the raid by the police could be said to be gambling therein. The facts of the case are as follows:-

(3.) On May 4, 1963, the police headed by Circle Inspector Krishnaswami raided the premises of the club. They found respondents 1-5 playing a card game known as "Rummy" for stakes. At the time of the raid, there were some counters on the table as also money and of course the playing cards with the players. Respondent No. 6, the Treasurer of the Club, was also present and was holding the stake money which is popularly known as "kitty." The 7th respondent is the Secretary of the Club and he has been joined as an accused, because he was in charge of the management of the club. The kitty which the sixth respondent held was Rs. 74.62 nP and a further sum of Rupees 218/- was recovered from the table of the 6th respondent, 66 counters were on the table and some more money was found with the persons who were indulging in the game. The evidence of the Circle Inspector is that he had received credible information that the premises of the club were being used as a common gambling house and he raided it and found evidence, because instruments of gambling were found and the persons present were actually gambling. The Magistrate convicted all the seven respondents and sentenced them to various fines, with imprisonment in default. The respondents then filed an application for revision before the Sessions Judge, Secunderabad who made a reference to the High Court under S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, recommending the quashing of the conviction and the setting aside of the sentences. This recommendation was accepted by the learned single Judge in the High Court and the present appeal is brought against his judgment by special leave granted by this Court.