MUNSHI RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seven persons Mani Ram, Raj Kumar, Jagdish Kumar, Ram Pal, Charanjit Lal, Tilak Raj and Surjit Singh were sent up to take their trial for having offended the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 . They were found guilty by the trial Magistrate, who convicted Mani Ram under section 3 of the Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50. He convicted the others under section 4 of the Act and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 30 each. The people were said to have been found gambling on the night between the 15th and 16th of October, 1952. The Dewali in that year was on the night between the 15th and 16th of October, 1952. The Dewali in that year was on the 18th of October, 1952. The convicts appealed to the Additional District Magistrate, who by his order dated the 6th of February, 1953, rejected their appeal. They have put in an application for revision in this Court.

(2.) The facts of the case are that Mr. Durga Singh, Station House Officer of Kotwali Amritsar, applied to a Magistrate to issue a warrant under section 5 of the Act on the 15th of October, 1952, saying that he had "credulous (sic) information to the fact that house No. 374/12 situated in Chowk Bazar Pasian, Amritsar, belonging to Mani Ram (one of the present accused) was being used as a common gambling house as defined in the Public Gambling Act III of 1867". He attached a plan to his application and requested that warrants under section 5 be issued. The Magistrate on that very day singed a typed form, which was put before him, in which the blanks had been filled up by Sub-Inspector Bhana Ram of Police Station Kotwali, Amritsar, authorising Bhana Ram to enter that house and to arrest the persons, who may be found there, whether actually gambling or not and seize all instruments of gaming and all money and securities for money, and articles of value reasonably suspected to have been used or intended to be used for the purpose of gaming, which may be found therein on search of the house, etc. etc. Accordingly a raid was made on this house at 11-30 that very night, the 15th of October, 1952, and the seven accused persons were arrested. All the seven accused were found gaming by playing cards. Sums of money were said to have been lying in front of each of them, the total amount being Rs. 28. The Sub-Inspector took into possession the money and the playing-cards. The Sub-Inspector arrested the seven accused and later on let them out on bail.

(3.) Mr. Bhagirath Das on behalf of the petitioners states that taking into consideration the normal professions of these men, it was improper on the part of the Magistrate without further inquiry to have issued the warrant and that he should also have taken into consideration the proximity of the Dewali. The trying Magistrate also should not have come to the conclusion that the house was a common gaming house or that Mani Ram was applying, opening, keeping or using his house as a common gaming-house. Mr. Bhagirath Dass also urges that though after a warrant has been issued under section 5 of the Act, the statute declares that any instruments of gaming found in the house entered on search under the provisions of section 5 may be evidence that the house was used as a common gaming house yet the normal occupations of the persons and the time of the occurrence rebut that presumption and the statements of these persons that they were not gaming in a common gaming house should be accepted. The accused persons give their professions as follows : Mani Ram is an employee of the Municipality of Amritsar. Raj Kumar is a cloth Merchant of Amritsar. Jagdish Kumar has not told the Court his profession.