STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHARAD KESHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Opponents 1 to 5 along with 5 other persons were prosecuted for an offence under S. 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. Out of these 10 persons, Sundhakar was also prosecuted separately for an offence under S. 4 of the said Act.

(2.) THE pleas of the accused were recorded by the learned Magistrate on 2-8- 65. The particulars which were read and explained to the accused were in these terms. "offence complained of - Under S. 5 P. G. Act. You all were found incommon gaming house in Sudhakar Dhenge's rented house in 13-7-65 at 9 P. M. " plea recorded for accused Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 8 is "i am guilty". As regards the accused No. 9 it is "i plead guilty". On the basis of this admission of the guilt, the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8 and 9, namely the present opponents Sharad, Mohammad Pasha, Shakil Akhtar, Habibuddin and Shrikrishna under S. 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act and each of them is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 and indefault rigorous imprisonment for 30 days.

(3.) THE five accused who were convicted as aforesaid, felt themselves aggrieved by this order of conviction and hence filed a revision application before the Sessions Judge, Nagpur. The learned Sessions Judge found the conviction defective and illegal on three grounds. The first ground was that there were two cases pending in respect of the same incident. One was against the accused Sudhakar alone under S. 4 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act and the second was against all the ten accused including Sudhakar for an offence under s. 5 of the Act. According to him the necessary ingredient for holding the accused guilty in both the cases was to establish that Sudhakar was keeping a common gaming house, and unless this ingredient was proved, the accused could not be convicted. the learned Sessions Judge also took the view that these two cases filed under Ss. 4 and 5 of the Act had to be tried together and the common evidence was to be recorded inthese two cases. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, found that unless there was a finding that there was a common gaming house, it was not permissible to the learned Magistrate to convict some of them on admission and to acquit or convict others on evidence.