NARSAPPA Vs. STATE OF HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are six references by the learned District Magistrate, Raichur, recommending that the charges framed against the petitioners under Section 5, Hyderabad Gambling Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) be quashed and they be ordered to be discharged. In order to appreciate the point involved in these references, a few facts and some quotations in extenso need be mentioned and given. It appears that on 5th February, 1951, G. Sunkanna, Sub-Inspector in charge of Police Station at Lingsugur, submitted the following report to the Magistrate. I beg to submit that I received information that one Sultan Khan of Kasaivadi of Lingsugur allowed gambling with playing cards and money in his house and so his house was treated as one of the gaming houses for the public. I request the Honourable Court for issuing a house-search warrant for arresting the gamblers and to recover money and cards to maintain law and order.

(2.) THE Magistrate at Lingsugur passed the following order on the back of the report. This is a report of Sub-Inspector, Lingsugur, wherein it is stated and requested that Sultan Khan of Kasaivadi has allowed gambling in his house and now the gamblers are there. Believing this report, I order that a house-search warrant may be urgently issued in the name of the Sub-Inspector, Lingsugur, stating that he is authorised to search the house of Sultan Khan of Kasaivadi, Lingsugur town, and take necessary (action) against him.

(3.) IN pursuance of this order, a warrant was despatched with a covering letter No. 204 dated 5th February 1951. The Sub-Inspector on receipt of the warrant raided Sultan Khan's house the same day at 4 p. m. . There, he found eight persons playing cards with money. He accordingly arrested them and prepared the necessary panchnamas. The accused were thereafter challaned on 6th February 1951. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution who deposed as to the mode the raid was effected, the persons found gambling and the property recovered from the house raided. No evidence was adduced to show that Sultan Khan derived any profit or gain from the gambling which according to the Prosecution was being carried on in his house. P. W. 1, the Sub-Inspector, no doubt in his preliminary examination said that the accused used to pay one anna per game to the owner of the house as compensation but in cross-examination admitted that his knowledge in this respect was based on hearsay. In this state of evidence, the charges as stated above were framed against the petitioner.