GURAPPA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the petitioners in this case have been convicted of an offence under Section 63 (4), Mysore Police Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. A-10 has, in addition, been convicted of an offence under Section 63(3) of the Mysore Police Act and sentenced to pay a similar amount of fine.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the Police Inspector PW 1 got a search warrant, Ext. P-1, issued by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Channapatna, as he had for some times past come to know that the house of A-10 was being used as a common gaming house. On the house being raided at 11-30 on the night of 15-6-1951, it was found that both the front and hind doors were bolted from inside, and the shuffling of the cards and the conversation showing that a game of chance was being played were heard. On entering the house it was found that the game was actually going on as some of the playing cards were in front of the players, a few with face downwards, and others thrown nearby. A sum of more than Rs. 600/-was actually found in what is known as the 'Akhada', which means the place where money is placed as stake. The only witnesses examined in the case are the Police Inspector and the Sub-Inspector, and the other mahazar witnesses are not examined.

(3.) There is hardly any doubt that it is open to the Court to reject the prosecution evidence in cases where mahazar witnesses are not examined. But, in this case, apart from the presumptions which arise and would be considered later, there is hardly any doubt that the prosecution version as stated by P. Ws. 1 & 2 is true. Even the version of the accused is that there was a raid, that some of them were playing cards and that the money seized was actually seized there. They would, however, have the Court believe that they had met there for purposes of a chit fund transaction and that since one of the members of the chit fund had not still come, some of them were playing cards. That way, the only difference between the two versions is that, while according to the prosecution case, they were engaged in playing a game of chance, according to the accused, it was only a game of skill they were playing. Whether what was going on was a game of chance or a game of skill depends not much on the evidence of the witnesses themselves but ,on the circumstances of the case which are not denied. A large number of persons from different localities had met late at night in a house which evidently had the reputation of being used as a common gaming house, as is clear by the fact that the Police had obtained a search warrant. What was taking place in the house was being conducted with both the main and back doors of the house bolted from inside and a large sum of money was on the 'Akhada'. What is the natural presumption that arises in cases of this kind, whether the search warrant obtained by the Police was one that is in accordance with the law or not? The only answer that can be given in circumstances such as those of this case is that it must be presumed from the above facts that the accused were engaged in something which was shady and considering that they were playing cards with a good deal of money, the natural inference would be that they were playing a game of chance.