ANURUDH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code'). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18/1/2012 passed by First ASJ, Chhatarpur in Cri. Revision No. 193/2011, affirming the order passed on 25/7/11 by CJM, Chhatarpur in Cri. Case No. 1758/11, whereby particulars of the offence, punishable under Section 4 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), were read over and explained to him and the co-accused for the purpose of recording their plea. Prosecution case, in short, may be stated as under:

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously contended that the offence, under Section 4 of the Act, was not made out as there was not even an iota of evidence to show that the shop was being used as a Common Gaming House. According to him, the entire proceedings of search and seizure stood vitiated due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 5 of the Act.

(3.) In response, learned Government Advocate has submitted that under the garb of the petition under Section 482 of the Code, provisions of Section 397(3) thereof, that bars a second revision, cannot be circumvented. However, as explained by the Apex Court in Krishnan v. Krishnaveni, 1997 4 SCC 241, when the High Court on examination of the record finds that there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the Court or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice, it is the duty of the High Court to have the mistake committed by the revisional Court corrected at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice should ensue. The question, therefore, is as to whether such a case is made out ?