IN RE: PALANISAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE seven revision petitioners were found guilty of gaming in a common gaming house under section 9 of the Madras Gaming Act (III of 1930), and each sentenced to a fine of Rs. 30 in default to R.I. for one week. The ground which was urged at the trial itself was that the warrant issued by the concerned Authority under section 5 of the Act, did not specify that that Authority had reason to believe that the place was used as a common gaming house. A Bench decision of Happel and Govindarajachari, JJ., in Venkoba Rao v. Emperor : (1948) 1 M.L.J. 121, was relied upon, as authority for the view that where a Magistrate does not state, on the warrant ex fade, that he has reason to believe that the place was used as common gaming house, no presumption to the effect should be drawn. If a warrant is challenged, the evidence must be adduced that, in fact, the warrant was issued on proper information. But this point has no application to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the warrant was issued by the competent Authority (Dy. Superintendent of Police, Tirupur) and the Authority states that "on due enquiry" he has been "led to believe" that the house was used as a common gaming house. This, in my view, is adequate compliance with the requirements of section 5 and the dicta in Venkoba Rao v. Emperor : (1948) 1 M.L.J. 121. No other evidence was, therefore, necessary, and the point of objection must fail. The second point is with regard to adequacy of the evidence let in to show that the place was really used as a common gaming house. This point does not appear to have much substance, in view of the very clear evidence that not merely were these revision petitioners then engaged in gaming with cards, out that betting materials were seized, including both cards and a cash to the tune of Rs. 156 -99 nP. These would constitute evidence under section 6 of Act III of 1930 that the place was used as a common gaming house; it is urged that the material objects were not exhibited. But I note that, at the trial, it was conceded that the presumption under section 6 would apply; the argument was that there should be some further evidence. The convictions appear to me to be correct, and to be sustained by the evidence on the record. The sentence are by no means excessive. Both are confirmed and the Revision Petition is dismissed.