ZEENATULLAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by one Zeenatullah who, along with others was convicted Under Section 13 of the Gambling Act and also Under Section 224 of the IPC.

(2.) WHAT actually took place was that on 29 -6 -1965 information was received by constable Harnandan Prasad (PW 1) of police out -post Khakra within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kotwali, Pilibhit, that gambling was going on at a particular place. He took some constables with him as also some members of the public and raided the place and was successful in arresting three out of eight persons who were found gambling. The Applicant was one of those persons who managed to escape, but he was given a chase and was arrested and it is alleged that he thereafter managed to secure his release. Some of the persons who were prosecuted for the offence were acquitted by the Sessions Judge who heard the appeal and some others who were convicted along with the Applicant have not come up in revision to this Court. This revision has been filed only by Zeenatullah and the main contention on his behalf was that the place where the gambling was alleged to have been going on was not a public place.

(3.) SECTION 13 of the Gambling Act makes gambling punishable if it is found to be going on "in any public street, common place or thoroughfare." The word "Public" in this expression obviously qualifies all the words succeeding the words "street", "place" and "thoroughfare". The expression has, therefore, only to be read as "public street, public place or public thoroughfare". The expression "public place" gets sandwiched between "public street" and "public thoroughfare" and will, therefore, have its sense from the other two expressions "public street" and "public thoroughfare". Even if the word "place" is understood as a place other than a lane, bye lane, road or things of that kind, it must at least be a place which is frequently visited by the members of the public. It is because of this that gambling has been prohibited at public place aforesaid. Reliance was placed by the Learned Counsel for the Applicant on Govinda v. Emperor, (1936) 162 IC 886 in which a view has been taken that whether a particular place is a public place would depend upon the character of the place itself and the use actually made of it. Reference is made in this case to an earlier decision of the Court of the Nagpur Judicial Commissioner reported in Vithu v. Emperor, 21 IC 910 in which it has been observed: