TANDON Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by 1 Tandon and 2 Ram Prasad. They have been convicted of offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Public Gambling Act.

(2.) Two points have been urged before me by the learned counsel for the applicants. The first contention is that the evidence on the record does not satisfy the requirements of Section 3 of the Act. It is contended that whereas it has been found that both the applicants are owners of the Kothri which has been found to be a gaming house, it has not been proved that they had knowingly permitted the same to be opened, Occupied, used or kept by any other person as a common gaming house. This is a pure question of fact and was not canvassed in the Court below. If it had been canvassed there, there would have been a clear finding on the point. The learned counsel was not entitled to raise this question of fact, for the first time, in this Court. I have, however, looked into the evidence in the case and I have no doubt that the requirements of the section are not wanting.

(3.) It is impossible to believe that this Kothri was used as a gaming house without their knowledge or without the permission of the two owners. Indeed the case for the prosecution is that these two persons had opened the gaming house and were running it. They certainly knowingly permitted the Kothri to be used and occupied by each other for the purpose of running a common gaming house. They have, therefore, been rightly convicted under Section 3 of the Act.