NARSINGH JIVRAJ SONI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NARSING along with seven others was convicted on a summary trial under Section 4, Gambling Act by the learned Municipal Magistrate, Indore, for an offence under the Gambling Act and sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- each. Soniram who was accused No. 4 was further convicted under Section 3, Gambling Act, and sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-for that offence. Both the sentences of imprisonment were to run concurrently in his case. An appeal preferred by them to the Sessions Judge of Indore was dismissed; hence this revision application.

(2.) THE material facts lie within a short compass: On the night of the last Diwali festival Sub-Inspector Chaturbhuj of Police Station Bada Sarafa received information that gambling was going on in a certain house in his circle. He satisfied himself as to the correctness of the information received and raided the house. He took with him besides others, Head Constable Balmukund and two Panchas who appear to have been picked up by him on the way. They reached the house in question whereof the exit door was found open. On the first floor they found the eight accused in a closed room. It is alleged that they peeped through a chink in the door and found the accused gambling with playing cards. They were stated to be playing a game of Mang Patta. The Sub-Inspector got the door opened. The raiding party according to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses permitted its members to be searched before entering the room. When the room was searched by the Police a pack of playing cards (52 in number) and a sum of Rs. 77-14-9 were recovered. Some change was found lying in front of the persons who were taking part in the game. It has also come out in the evidence that actually only six persons (excluding Narsing and Chhagan) were taking part in the game. Narsingh was asleep and Chhagan was sitting apart. The petitioners were accordingly challaned, tried and convicted as already stated. Their defence that they were playing a game of Chhakdi and not Mang Patta, was rejected by the Courts below, mainly in view of the presumption that arises in Gambling Act cases under Section 6.

(3.) IT was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that this was not a case in which the presumption under Section 6 ought to have been raised. He argued that it was a mis-appreciation of the true import of that section and a mis-application of its provisions which has resulted in the petitioners' conviction.