YASH PAL SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Revision, petitioner wants conviction and sentence passed by Shri D.N. Kadian, M.M. Delhi, and confimming order passed by Sh. G.S. Dhaka, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, be set aside.

(2.) Brief facts are that the petitioner was standing at the Railway Station Shahdara, alongwith three persons. According to prosecution all the four persons were gambling on the platform when apprehended. Other three co-accused pleaded guilty, but the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution are official/police witnesses. There is no independant witness associated with the same. Trial Court believed the prosecution story and found him guilty and sentenced him to R.I. for one month and fine of Rs. 300.00, in default of payment of fine 15 days S.I. Additional Sessions Judge did not find merit in the appeal and dismissed the same. The petitioner herein contends that the prosecution witnesses admitted that the petitioner was not playing the cards. He was simply standing at the platform and this fact finds corroboration from the cross examination of Raj Dutt, PW-1. Raj Dutt admits that when the petitioner was apprehended and his search was conducted nothing was recovered. Public Witness .-l, further admits that petitioner was not playing cards. He was only standing by the side of those who were playing. He also admitted that on personal search of the petitioner a railway pass was recovered from him which was from Shahdara to Delhi. Similarly ASI Hukam Singh, PW-2, admitted in his cross-exam, that he did not see cards in the hands of the petitioner. He also admitted that from platform No. 1 platform No 2 where the petitioner and his co-accused were standing every thing was visible. He futher admited that other- co-accused of the petitioner were playing cards but he presumed that since he was standing therefore, he must have been playing the cards. Since it was not the time for any train to cross Shahdra Railway Station, therefore he presumed that the petitioner could not be a passenger. Admittedly no independent witness has been associated in this case, though all the witnesses admit that the passengers were standing on platform No. 2 where the petitioner and his co-accused were arrested. It is in this background that the petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated. Merely because he was standing at the platform, he could not have been held guilty of any offence.

(3.) The Trial Court did take note of the fact that the petitioner when apprehended was only standing by the side of those three persons who were playing the cards. He also took note of the fact that no cards were recovered from the petitioner. Inspite of these facts having come on record the trial Court convicted the petitioner by placing reliance on S 4 (2) of the Delhi Public Gambling Act, 1955 (the Act).