GOVINDA SETTY AND Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner-accused 1 and 2 against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 1954, confirming that of the learned Additional First Class Magistrate, Bangalore, in C. C. No. 4413/ 54, convicting the first petitioner under Section 63(1), Mysore Police Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of one month, and convicting the second petitioner under Section 63(2), Mysore Police act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and also to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three weeks.

(2.) The case for the prosecution was that on 4-7-1954 at about 1 P.M. the accused were found gaming on horse betting in a shop in the occupation of the first petitioner in Choudeswari temple street, that the said shop was being used as a common gaming house and that the accused thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 63, Mysore Police Act. Both the accused pleaded not guilty but the learned Magistrate ultimately convicted and sentenced the petitioners as stated above. As against that decision, the petitioners went in appeal and the learnea Sessions Judge confirmed the convictions and sentences passed on the petitioners and dismissed their appeal. As against that judgment, this revision petition is preferred.

(3.) The main point that arises for consideration is whether the guilt of the petitioners has been brought home to them. So far as A-1 is concerned it appears to me that there is no substance in this petition. He has been convicted and sentenced under Section 63(1), Police Act for having used his shop as a common gaming house. It appears to me that the evidence adduced in the case fully justifies the conviction of this accused tinder the aforesaid section. That he is in occupation of shop No. J2 in Choudeswari temple street has been proved by the evidence of P.W. 2, the owner of that shop. His testimony is that he has leased that shop to A-1, The 1st accused also admits the lease and his having been in possession of it on the date of the occurrence. So the only point that arises for consideration is whether the 1st petitioner used or allowed the shop to be used as a common gaming house.