PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. MULUPURI SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are appeals against the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Judl. 2nd Class Magistrate, Eluru, On 20-2-1964 and raise the following circumstances.

(2.) Ten accused where charged for being found holding a gambling den in Jolly Club situated in front of Eluru Bus Stand. On the night of 23-8-1963 at about 9 p.m. C. W. I, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Eluru, raided the Club and found accused 1 to 8 playing cards with stakes. On sighting the Police Officer these players threw the cards and stood up. The Deputy Superintendent of Police thereupon seized the playing cards and some tokens and also money amounting to Rs. 25-07. A-9 and A-10 are the Secretary and the President respect The defence raised by the accused was that they are not guilty of the charges levelled against them under Section 8 and 9 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Gaming Act, 3 of 1930 (hereinafter called the Act). After recording the evidence adduced by the prosecution and examining the Deputy Superintendent of Police as a Court witness the learned Magistrate acquitted all the accused of the said charge holding that the search made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police was made on improper grounds and that it was an invalid search and that no presumption under Section 6 therefore arose in the case. He consequently found that the Jolly Club does not maintain of the Act and that the accused therefore cannot be convicted.

(3.) The principal contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that whether the Deputy Superintendent of Police had sufficient or proper reasons to believe that the Jolly Club is being used as a common gaming house cannot be enquired into by the Court below. There was however, enough material on the basis of which the Deputy Superintendent of Police could reasonably come to the conclusion that he had reasonable grounds to believe that the said Club is being used as a common gaming house and that the raid therefore was perfectly valid under Section 5 of the Act and consequently presumption under Section 6 of the Act ought to arise in this case. He further argued that coupled with this presumption if the evidence adduced by the prosecution is taken into account, it can safely be found that A-9 and A-10 who are the Secretary and the President respectively of the Club, are running the Club as a common gaming house and that A-1 to A-8 were found playing cards on stakes on the day when the raid took cards on stakes on the day when the raid took place. In order to appreciate this contention it is necessary to read Section 5 and 6 of the Act.