MANI RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case was referred to a Division Bench by my brother Soni J. because he felt that the principles governing the interpretation of Section 6 of tile Public Gambling Act required to be stated after a fuller consideration.

(2.) THE facts briefly are that a house situated in the town of Amritsar was raided by the Police on the authority of a warrant issued under Section 5 of the Gambling Act on the night of 15-10-1952. In this house seven persons including Mani Ram who is admittedly the owner and occupier of the house were found. The Police also found playing-cards and money which were being used by the various persons in a game of chance. These persons were prosecuted under the gambling Act, Mani Ram for being the owner and occupier of a public gaminghouse under section 3 and the remaining six persons for being found in a gaming-house under Section 4. The accused persons put forward a somewhat stupid defence with which we are not concerned now, and the only point for our decision is whether in the circumstances of the case the presumption arising under Section 6 of the Act is sufficient to hold these seven persons guilty of the offences of which they have been convicted.

(3.) ON behalf of the accused persons it was contended before us by Mr. Bhagirath Das that the night of occurrence was two days before Diwali day and that the Diwali festival is considered an auspicious occasion for gambling by all Hindus. Indeed, the gambling has assumed the proportions of a religious rite on this occasion. It was further contended that Mani Ram is a municipal employee and is not the keeper of a gaminghouse and the remaining six persons who were found in the house are not the bind of persons who indulge habitually in gambling, and had gone to Mani Ram's house as friends to celebrate the Diwali festival. Mr. Bhagirath Das also contended that the prosecution had not proved all the ingredients of the charges upon which the convictions of the petitioners were based.