CHARAN MISRI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJU J.

(2.) IN this case the appellant was convicted under sec. 12(a) read with sec. 4 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act for having accepted Re. 1/from another person as a bet on American Cotton Futures. The complainant P. S. I. deposed that one person came and gave a currency note of rupee one to the accused for 1000 as a bet of 8 Teji. When the prosecution case is that money was received by the accused as a bet it is necessary to prove that money was received and how the receipt of money amounts to a bet. The P. S. I. should have deposed exactly what were the words which passed between the bettor and the appellant. Whether the object in giving a one rupee note to the appellant was by way of a bet is not a matter of inference It is not open to a prosecution witness to draw his own inference. It is however open to a prosecution witness to explain the special or peculiar words if any used by a bettor in order to lay a bet. For instance if a bettor used the expression 8 Teji it is open to the P. S. I. to explain the expression 8 Teji and to explain its meaning provided he has special means of explaining that expression. IN this case he has not deposed that he had heard the words 8 Teji. The mere fact that one rupee currency note was given to the appellant does not necessarily amount to a bet. Whether it amounts to a bet or not is for the Court to decide and an inference cannot be drawn on that point by the prosecution witnesses. An inference drawn by a prosecution witness from what he had seen or heard cannot be deposed to. It is open to an expert to give his opinion. IN this case therefore there is no admissible evidence from which the Court can draw the inference that a bet had been laid with the appellant.