CHUNILAL CHHAGANLAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application arises out of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge Nadiad who confirmed in appeal the convictions of the seven applicants under section 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act and the sentences passed on them of fine of Rs. 200/each in default imprisonment for one month.

(2.) In revision. the learned counsel for the applicants has argued three points: (1) That the conviction under sec. 5 of the Gambling Act is not justified when the P.S.I. who made the search under sec. 6 of the Gambling Act is contradicted by both the Panchas who say that they were not present in the room at the time when it was searched although according to the P.S.I. the search was made in the presence of the Panchas; (2) that such a conviction is not justified when the P.S.I. is contradicted by the head constable who accompanied him and who has deposed that he does not remember whether the particular room in which; according to the prosecution instruments of gaming were found was or was not searched; and (3) that on the evidence no reasonable Court would have convicted the accused when the conviction is based on presumption arising under sec. 7 of the Gambling Act in view of the contradictions between the P.S.I. and the head constable and in view of the contradictions between the P.S.I and the Panchas.

(3.) In this case the two Panchas who were taken at the time of the search of the place under a warrant issued under sec. 6 of the Gambling Act did not support the P.S.I. One of the Panchas denied having been shown the warrant. One of the Panchas says that he did not go up-stairs. The second Panch said that the voluntarily remained on the Otla down stairs and both the Panchas say that the police brought the accused down stairs and also showed them the instruments of gaming which are alleged by the P.S.I. to have been found in the room at the time of the search.