GIRDHARI LAL ETC Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four petitioners, namely, Girdhari Lal, Kanhaya Lal, Ladha Ram and Inder Lal alongwith five others were tried under Section 4 of he Gambling Act. The trial Court acquitted the others, but convicted the petitioners under the said section and sentenced them to a fine of Rs. 60 each or in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment of thirty-six days each. They went up in appeal in the Court of Sessions which proved abortive and was dismissed by Shri Manmohan Singh Gujral, Sessions Judge, Rohtak, vide his order dated the 16th of October, 1961. The petitioners have still felt dissatisfied and have approached this Court in revision.

(2.) The story for the prosecution briefly is that on receipt of information on the 24th of May, 1960 Joginder Singh, Station House Officer, organised a raiding party consisting of Sis Ram P.W.1, Ram Sarup P.W.2., Nirajan Singh and some others. Niranjan Singh alongwith some others entered the house of Inder Lal petitioner, where they found the petitioners alongwith their companions gambling with the aid of the dices. Some money was also recovered from them. The prosecution examined Sis Ram, Ram Sarup and Joginder Singh, Sub-Inspector, P.Ws. in support of their case. Niranjan Singh, another non-official witness, was given by the prosecution perhaps as won over. Sis Ram stated that the raiding party entered into the house of Inder Lal petitioner, but they did not see the accused gambling there. The trial Court, however, relying on the statement of Joginder Singh, Sub-Inspector, and also that of Ram Sarup held the case proved against four of the petitioners, and the learned Sessions Judge also upheld the conviction on the same grounds.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to the observations made by the trial Court in respect of Ram Sarup P.W.2. It was observed in that judgment that Ram Sarup P.W.2 stated that he knew all the accused and could identify them, but in Court Ram Sarup P.W.2 only was able to identify the four petitioners. The trial Court, therefore, observed that he did not know as to why Ram Sarup could not pick out the other five persons if he knew them. Ram Sarup, moreover, admittedly has appeared in a few excise cases for the police. If I hold the evidence of Ram Sarup also undependable, then we are only left with the statement of the investigating officer in this case, in my opinion, it will be unsafe to base the conviction on his solitary statement when the other witnesses, who were examined in support of the prosecution did not support it, and Ram Sarup was obviously undependable.