RAMNARAYAN NANDRAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by a person convicted by a 1st Class Magistrate under Sections 3 and 4 of the Madhya Bharat Gambling Act, and sentenced under each of the two sections to suffer simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 with further imprisonment in default for one month under each count. His appeal has also been dismissed. Among other points, he has urged that the entire proceeding of search under Section 5 of the Act is vitiated by the fact that the search was without jurisdiction, there being no "credible information" before the police officer, that the particular place (the applicant's betel shop) was being used as a common gaming house. Secondly, that certain papers have been read as "betting slips" (Exhs. B, C and D), though they were in code, and the police officer's key to the code was itself based on hearsay information. Thirdly, that a conviction under Section 3 was in any case, uncalled for, because there is no element of repetition, this alleged incident being the only one act of gambling even according to the prosecution. Finally, it is prayed that the sentence of imprisonment is not called for, especially, as the Madhya Bharat Act which provides for a minimum sentence of imprisonment even on the first conviction, was repealed while the case was pending, and was replaced by the Central Provinces Public Gaming Act, which does not provide for a minimum sentence of imprisonment on first conviction, though, otherwise the provisions are quite similar.

(2.) REHMAN was given a marked one -rupee note and according to him, he went and gave the note to Ramnarayanthe applicantand asked him to treat it as a bet on the digit 3 in that day's American Future, Ramnarayan agreed and accepting the amount, made a note on the slip with Rehman's name and certain letters. Therefore, Rehman gave the agreed signal, by lighting a bidi in the usual manner. The police party walked in, recovered the marked note and three slips (marked B, C and D) mentioning names, ostensibly, of the betters and certain letters noted against each of them, whose meaning can be deciphered only if we know the code. One of the slips was

(3.) THE next question is in regard to gambling by Rehman, and further, in regard to the evidence of repetition. In all such cases, the primary evidence is that of the person who goes and offers the money and makes his conditions, be then deposes that his bet and conditions were accepted and the money was taken, and a note made either in the books of the person conducting the business, or on a separate Blip of paper. But since such a person may be, and in the case like the present one, actually is, an agent taking part in a trap to catch the alleged manager of the gaming house, his evidence has to be corroborated by independent material. It is evidence all right; but even if it is theoretically conceivable that such evidence by itself can support a conviction, the rule of prudence is that sufficient independent corroboration should be sought, as the very fact of his taking part in a trap with or without the incentive of profit, is likely to make him overzealons. In the present case, the agent (Rehman) is clear and categorical that he had told the applicant of his intention that the one -rupee note he was giving, should be placed as a bet on digit 3, in that day's American future and, that he should get a certain multiple. He further asserts that the Petitioner agreed, took his money and made a note on a slip of paper.