IN RE: KUNJITHAPATHAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the testimony of P. W. 1, the accused is entitled to an acquittal.

(2.) ALL that P. W. 1 speaks about the incident is that one Shanmugham owned M. Os. 1 to 3 and that on 14th January, 1969 at 9.30 p.m. he saw M. O. 1 containing pictures of six animal M.O. 2 was the circling indicator -in the chakri. The indicator was turned and where it stopped was the winning animal. According to P. W. 1 M.O. 2 would win the game for the man who would wager or not.

(3.) THE prosecution has got to prove that this accused -Petitioner was found 'gaming' within the meaning of that term in Section 3 of the Madras Gaming Act. At any rate, this evidence is consistent with the hypothesis of the innocence of the accused, as an on -looker. In the absence of any overt act to prove the accused as 'found gaming', I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused -Petitioner.