HARAKCHAND RADHAKISHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Satarkar, Sub -Inspector Chatri -(sic)Police Station received information that (sic) in American Futures was being carried (sic)he shop of Shaligram and Harakchand, (sic) on the Biyabani Chaurah. The Sub Ins -(sic) of Police there upon got hold of one Ram -(sic) and on 10 -11 -1952, at about 9 P.M. gave him (sic)rupee note, which is Article A in this case, (sic)ed him to bet 8 annas on the figure 0 and (sic) on figure 5, with the accused. A Panch -(sic) this delivery of note was duly made in (sic)he number of note given to Ramprasad (sic)ded. Ramprasad is alleged to have car -(sic) the instructions of the Sub Inspector and (sic)bet to Harakchand accused No. 1. The (sic) the accused was immediately, raided and in the search the note Article A and some slips alleged to be in the hand -writing of Harakchand and containing a record of betting in American futures were seized. Both the accused Harakchand and Shaligram were in the shop. They were arrested and later on put up for trial before the Municipal Magistrate at Indore.

(2.) MR . Balwantsingh, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner challenged the conviction of the accused and submitted that there was no evidence to prove that actually gambling in American futures was carried on in the shop and that the bets were taken and given as alleged by the prosecution. He also contended that there was no evidence that the article seized in the search were in fact instruments of gambling or wore things which the Police Officer had reasonable grounds for suspecting to be the instruments of gambling. Under the circumstances, the learned Counsel urged that the accused could not have been convicted for having been found in the act of gambling or by reason of any presumption arising under Section 6 of the Gambling Act.

(3.) THE learned Dy. Government Advocate who appeared on behalf of the State did not at all dispute the proposition that by itself the evidence of Ramprasad cannot be considered sufficient to support the conviction of the accused but he urged that the recovery of the Muddemal note from the box ¼ MCck 1/2 in the shop of the accused and a slip containing the name of Ramprasad gave the necessary corroboration. He further stated that this is not a case where things seized in the search were on the reasonable grounds suspected to be instruments of gaming by the Police Officer but they were in fact instruments of gaming. The note according to the Dy. Government Advocate was given as a bet and the slip Article B was the record of this bet.