DELHI ADMINISTRATION Vs. PARKASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has been reported, by the leaned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, with the recommendation that the order of the trial Magistrate dismissing the complaint be quashed and the main question which arises for determination is whether an offence under sections 3 and 4 of the Delhi Public Gambling Act 1955 (Act No. IX of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is a cognizable offence.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that a police report entitled State through S. I. Har Kesh of Special Staff, Old Police Lines, Delhi, against Parkash Chand and nine others, was forwarded to the trial Court by the Prosecuting Inspectors on 27th January, 1966. According to the allegations made in the report S. 1. Har Kesh, on receipt of trustworthy information that the house of Parkash Chand respondent was being used as a common gaming-house, obtained awarrant from the Superintendent of Police under Section 5 of the Act entitling him to search the same and arrest the persons found there. In pursuance of that warrant the sub-inspector raided the house of Parkash Chand on 20th December 1965 and found some cash and articles used for the purpose of gambling. The sub-inspector took those articles into possession and arrested the persons present there. The endorsement on the report shows that on 21st December 1965 when the accused were produced before Magistrate they were ordered to be released on bail. The report ultimately was forwarded, as stated above to, the trial Magistrate by the Prosecuting Inspector on 27th January 1966. When the case came up for hearing, an objection was raised on behalf of the accused- respondents that as it was a non-cognizable summons case and S. I. Har Kesh complainant was not present, the respondents were entitled to acquittal. Another objection was taken on the ground that there was no proper complaint. The trial Court condoned the absence of S.I. Har Kesh. It was, however, held that there was no proper complaint as it had not been addressed to any Court.

(3.) The State then went up in revision to the court of Session. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the offence complained of was a cognizable offence and in any case the report made by S. I. Har Kesh was a police report. It was also observed that even if the report was treated as a complaint, there was no defect in it. Recommendation was, accordingly, made that the order of the trial Magistrate dismissing the complaint be quashed and she be directed to try the case according to law.