ASA RAM AGARWALLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by one Asa Ram who has been convicted under Sec. 3 of the Public Gambling Act by a First Class Magistrate of Roorkee and has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 150.00, which conviction and sentence has been confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Saharanpur.

(2.) It appears that on the 30th Aug., 1952 at about 8-30 p.m. the shop of the applicant was raided by Sri Dubey, Resident Magistrate, Hardwar, and Sri R.K. Kapoor, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Roorkee, and 4 parchas were recovered front between the almirah and the cash box which are said to relate to the satta gambling which was being carried on in the shop. The applicant was thereupon prosecuted and was convicted.

(3.) It has been contended before me on behalf of the applicant that there was no satisfactory reason on the record that the Satta parchas (Exs. 1 to 4) which are alleged to have been recovered from the shop pertained to Satta gambling. It was also contended that there was nothing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that at the time of the alleged raid any Satta gambling was going on in the shop. It was further contended that the prosecution evidence does not show what was the commodity in respect of which the said gambling was going on in the shop. It may be mentioned here that the only evidence in support of the prosecution case that the parchas Exs. 1 to 4 are Satta parchas is of Sri Dubey, Magistrate, and Sri Kapoor, Assistant Superintendent of Police. It is, however, not clear from an examination of their evidence as to what is the basis for their opinion that these parchas necessarily relate to Satta gambling and no other transaction. The fact that at the time of the raid no gambling was going on in the shop nor besides the applicant anyone was present there also does not support the prosecution case. If Satta gambling were going on in the shop at the time of the raid the persons who were taking part in it should have been found in the shop. It was necessary for the prosecution to prove by satisfactory evidence as to what was the commodity in respect of which the applicant had indulged in Satta. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on Chiranji Lal Vs. Emperor, 1939 A.L.J.R. 990 ,. In this case it was held that where the applicant was charged for an offence under Sec. 3 of the Gambling Act it was incumbent on the prosecution under the law to prove by definite evidence the commodity in respect of which the alleged Satta gambling was going on, and where it had not been proved the accused was entitled to acquittal. In view of this decision and in view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the evidence produced in this case, I am of opinion that the conviction of the applicant cannot be sustained.