VITHAL TULSIRAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by Vithal Tulsiram, who was originally accused 1, from an order of conviction under Sections 4 (a) and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate 19th Court, Esplanade, Bombay.

(2.) THE facts which led up to the prosecution of this applicant along with others are very few. On 22-12-1954, Sub-Inspector Welling called a bogus punter of the name of Hiralal Govind and in the presence of the panchas gave him a marked eight-anna coin. The bogus punter was instructed to go to house No. 14, Roshan Building, 4th Marine Street at Dhobi Talao. The bogus punter was directed to lay a bet with any person who might happen to be found in house No. 14 and the direction was that the bet was to be laid on figures 1 to 2. Accordingly, the bogus punter went to house No. 14, Roshan Building, and when he went there he found that the present applicant was present in that house. The bogus punter gave his name as Hiralal and asked the applicant-accused 1 to accept a bet of eight annas on figures 1-2. The punter asked the applicant-accused 1 to accept the marked eight-anna coin which accused 1 did. Thereafter, the bogus punter went out and the police party, who were waiting for him to go out, raided the place. Sub-Inspector Welling and the Panch Yeshwant Devji went into the house. They found that the present applicant and two other persons were near the passage leading into the Roshan Building. The present applicant was found seated on a stool. He had a pencil in his right hand. His person was searched and as a result of the search of his person, two chits upon which there were figures, amounts and names were recovered. 14 identical blank chits were also found in the left hand of the applicant. In addition to these things, a sum of Rs. 19-6-0, which included the marked eight-anna coin was also recovered from the person of the applicant. It may be noted that on one of the chits which were recovered from the person of the applicant-accused 1, there was an entry mentioning the name of the bogus punter Hiralal. It also mentioned the amount of eight annas and it also mentioned the figures 1-2. Upon this material, the applicant and his two companions were prosecuted upon a charge under Sections 4 (a) and 5, Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. The two associates of the applicant, viz. , accused 2 and 3, were acquitted at the end of the trial, but the present applicant was convicted under Sections 4 (a) and 5, Prevention of Gambling Act and having regard to the fact that he had three previous convictions against him, he was sentenced to suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment. This js an application in revision against that order of conviction and sentence.

(3.) NOW, so far as the merits of the case are concerned we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the conviction of the applicant is perfectly correct. There is the evidence of Sub-Inspector Welling supported by the evidence of the panch Yeshwant Devji to show that the applicant was present in the passage leading into the Roshan Building and that when his person was searched, two chits and a certain amount were recovered from him. The amount recovered was Rs. 19-6-0 and it included the marked eight-anna coin which the punter had given to the applicant at the time of laying a bet upon the figures 1-2, On one of the two chits, which were recovered from the person of the applicant, there was an entry and that was an entry in respect of the particular bet which was laid by Hiralal upon the figures 1-2 and for which Hiralal had given the marked eight-anna coin to the applicant. The entry in question mentions the name of Hiralal. It mentions the figures 1-2 and it also men tions the amount of eight-annas. This fact lends a strong eorrbboration to the evidence of the Police Sub-Inspector who has deposed that the chits in question were satta chits because they bore the figures, the amounts and the names of persons who had laid bets. It is scarcely necessary to add any more comments to what I have stated in order to show that the charges under Sections 4 (a) and 5, Prevention of Gambling Act are brought home to the applicant.