AJIT BANK Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision requires three question in the main to be answered whether the articles said to be teer tickets were found in the possession on the Petitioner; (2) whether these tickets could be called instruments of betting; and (3) whether there was any violation of Section 7 of the Assam Games and Betting Act, 1970, for short the Act.

(2.) THESE questions need determination as the Petitioner was found guilty under Section 14 of the Act whose lethality operates, inter alia, when anybody is found in possession of any instruments of betting, The learned trial court was satisfied about the guilt of the accused and awarded minimum punishment provided by law which is R. I. for six months and A fine of Rs. 1000/ -. The same has been upheld by the learned Sessions Judge on appeal. Hence this revision.

(3.) IN this context it would be apposite to refer to Babulal v. state of Gujrat, : AIR 1971 SC 1277 where it was pointed out that it is not a rule of law and the evidence of a Food Inspector cannot be accepted without corroboration, as be can not be said to be an accomplice. What was held in this regard in pershadi v. State of U.P., : AIR 1957 SC 211 is more significant, In that case the sole evidence of a Police Officer relating to theStatement made by an accused while lending to the discovery of certain incriminating materiel was accepted ever though other witness were silent (SIC) same. Thus, there is no bar in law in relying on the lone statement of PW -2. further, we find from his evidence that the persons who were purchasing the tickets had fled away and as such no other person could have been expected to testify about the act of selling, or of possession of the teer tickets by the petitioners. So it is a (SIC) where the sole evidence of PW -2 could be acted upon, as has been done by the courts below. I do not find any infirmity in the same.