NARAYAN SHEORAO DHANGAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was convicted under Section 12(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Darwha, and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50, or, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. This conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge, Yeotmal, and the applicant has now come to this Court challenging his conviction.

(2.) THE applicant along with three other accused, who had admitted the guilt, were alleged to be found gaming in a public place on January 22, 1967. The place where they were found was under a tree in an open place and it is alleged that the place was raided by a Police Head Constable P.W. 3. Shankarrao along with two panchas P.W. 1 Irsharullah Khan and P.W. 2 Miyankhan. According to the prosecution, some other persons were also gaming, but they ran away and only the present applicant and three other persons were found. It is alleged that in front of the accused Rs. 10 were found and Us. 11 were seized from his person.

(3.) THE accused challenged his conviction by a revision application before the learned Sessions Judge, Yeotmal. The learned Sessions Judge found that the trying Magistrate was justified in accepting the evidence of the Police Head Constable and he confirmed the conviction. Inspite of the fact that it was the definite case of the accused that the Head Constable was not well -disposed towards him because of some earlier incident, the learned Sessions Judge found that it was not suggested that the Head Constable was in any way inimically disposed towards the accused, or that he had motive to involve the accused without, any reason. These observations do not appear to be correct, because, as stated above, it is the case of the accused that he had moved for transfer of the Head Constable and had complained to the higher authorities about his conduct. The order of the learned Sessions Judge also does not disclose that he had directed his attention as to whether the prosecution had succeeded in proving that the accused was found gaming. The revision application having been rejected, the applicant has now come to this Court challenging his conviction.