NAMDEO TUKARAM SHETE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three accused, who were prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 12(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act (hereinafter called the Gambling Act) for accepting Matka bets at an open place viz. behind Khatiji Mansion, Bombay and convicted and sentenced for the same, have come here in appeal. The Sub-Inspector of Police of the Anti-Gambling Squad after verifying the information whether there was gambling going on at a public place behind Khatiji Mansion arranged for a bogus punter and a raid. The bogus punter was shown the place and was given one rupee marked note and was asked to lay a bet on figures 1 to 3 at that place. The necessary panchanamas were drawn of all this and the party went in a police van to Kemps corner and after parking the van there walked down this distance to August Kranti Marg. They sent the punter to the place where the three accused were sitting with two lanterns and necessary equipment for Matka bets. The punter went there with a one rupee marked note and laid a bet on figures 1 to 3 and returned and signalled. The Police then went and raided the place and arrested the accused. The first accused was found with a ball pen and Matka recording books with carbon papers with six slips. There was also a duplicate of slip 5 7 6 where Matka figures 1 to 3 were recorded by the accused. He was found also with the marked rupee note as well as Rs. 15.50p. The second accused was also found with a pen with a Matka recording book with some slips, some torn and some untorn. He was also found with Rs. 32/-. The third accused was also found there with a duplicate Matka slip books and a sum of Rs. 200/-. A panchanama of all this was drawn and after necessary verification all the three accused were prosecuted.

(2.) All the three accused denied having committed the offence and said that they had nothing to do with the offence; they were not found in possession of the books or the pens and they did not take bet of the bogus punter. The learned Magistrate was satisfied with the evidence led by the prosecution and found the accused guilty. He then convicted each of the accused under section 12(a) of the Gambling Act and sentenced each of them to suffer R.I.. for one month and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. This order of conviction and sentence is challenged here.

(3.) The prosecution for the purpose of proving the charge have examined punter Mohammad Hasan Maniar (P.W. 1) as well as panch witness Mohammad Shaikh Ahmed (P.W. 2) and Sub-Inspector of Police Madhukar Patil (P.W. 3) Punter Mohammad Hasan appears to be a habitual punter who admitted that he had acted as a punter in more than 20 cases. Evidently therefore he is clearly a police agent and prima facie therefore his evidence cannot be relied unless and until it is corroborated in all material particulars. He was given before the panchas a marked one rupee note and was asked to lay a bet on 1 to 3 with the three accused at that public place. He says that he went there, gave the one rupee marked currency note and laid the bet on 1 to 3. After he returned he signalled and the Police then raided the place. It was tried to be shown that the panch witness has also appeared as a witness before by bringing the record of the criminal case in other case, but the address given by this witness appears to be quite different from the address given by the present pancha witness. Evidently therefore this panch witness appears to be a person who had not appeared before as a panch witness. He corroborates the evidence of the punter and says that when he went with the raiding party he found the accused Nos. 1 and 2 sitting on a-box and accused No. 3 standing and there were two lamps. Accused No. 1 was found with the marked currency note which was given to the punter and he had also some money and Matka book and a ball pen. Accused No. 2 was also found with Matka slips and Rs. 32/- as well as a ball pen and accused No. 3 with Rs. 200/- and some slips. He proves the panchanama which is one record and the panchanama corroborates him in all material details. P.S.I. Patil also corroborates all this. The point, therefore, that arises here for consideration is whether all this evidence proves the guilt of the accused or not.