S NARAYANA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Station House Officer, Arundelpet, filed two charge -sheets against S, Narayana of Arundelpet, for keeping a gaming house, punishable under Section 8 of the Madras Gaming Act, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and another under Section 9 of the Act against S. Narayana and nine others for playing cards with stakes in the gaming house owned by S. Narayana. Of the ten accused charged under Section 9 of the Act five pleaded guilty. The case against those that admitted the guilt was separated and they were found guilty on their admission and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15 each and in default, five days' S.I. Out of the other five accused,, i.e., the present petitioners, two pleaded that they were not in the house at all and the remaining three pleaded not guilty. The two cases under Section 8 and Section 9 of the Act were tried together. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. On the evidence produced the 1st Class Bench Magistrate held the petitioners guilty and sentenced each of them to a fine of Rs. 20 and in default to five days' S.I. Hence this revision on their behalf.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners argued first that the Court below erred in raising a presumption under Section 6 of the Act when the warrant as provided under Section 6 of the Act was not produced and the Dy. S. P. who is said to have accompanied the Sub -Inspector of Police was not examined. He next contended that if it was a fact as stated by P.W. 1 that Dy, S. P. accompanied him this would have been stated in the F. I. R. or the charge -sheet. The very fact, he urges, that there is no mention in either of these documents clearly shows that the Dy. S. P. did not accompany the Sub -Inspector. It is lastly urged that there is absolutely no evidence in the case to show that the place was a common gaming house and that S. Narayana was the keeper or that he was running the gaming house. On behalf of the .respondent it is very rightly conceded that the warrant was not produced, but it is argued that when P.W. 1 clearly stated that the Dy. S. P. was with him, that was sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 5 of, the Act to raise a presumption under Section 6. Adverting to the .argument relating to the proof whether S. Narayana was running the gaming house, the learned Public Prosecutor, relying on Section 9 of the Act, urged that it was not necessary. In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned Counsel a reference to the relevant provisions of the Act, Act ill of, 1930 is necessary.

(3.) SECTION 5 relates to the power to grant warrant to enter a common gaming house, which runs as follows: