STATE Vs. DHANI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge Kathua, on 16/3/1970 whereby he has recommended that the order of discharge passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kathua, on 14/12/1968 should be set aside. The brief facts which have resulted in this reference are that on 30th October 1969 the Superintendent of Police Kathua issued a warrant for the search of the house of Piayroo son of Kripa Ram R/o Parol under the Gambling Act. The house of this Piayroo was raided in the evening of 31st October 1967 and the accused, who are 14 in number, were found gambling; hence a 1971 Cri. L. J. /46 case Under Section 3/4 of the Gambling Act was presented against them. According to the prosecution story Shri Rajkumar S. H. O. raided the house of this Piaryoo and arrested some persons who were actually gambling and some of them were made to sit on a Garhi, may be truck or a bus, and others were being made to board the vehicle when a number of persons rescued the arrested persons and assaulted the police party. As a result of this incident 13 accused also were challaned Under Sections 224, 225, 353, 332, 147, 149 and 341, R. P. C. in the same court. When both the cases were presented before the Chief Judicial Magistrate he dismissed both of them holding firstly that the Gambling Act had not been extended to the village of the accused i. e. Village Parol, the search warrant under the Gambling Act was as such illegal and any assault committed by the accused on the police party would not be an offence in the eyes of law. Against this order, a revision application was presented before the Sessions Judge, Kathua. In that court a copy of a notification which was published in the Government Gazette dated 22-11-1998 was presented, according to which exercising the powers conferred by Section 2 of the Jammu and Kashmir Gambling Act, 1977 (Act No. XVIII) of 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the Government extended the provisions of the said Act to places mentioned therein and out of the places mentioned in the notification, village Parol within the police station Kathua also is included. According to the learned Sessions Judge, as the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate was based mainly on the ground that the Act had not been extended to village Parol where the house of Piayroo was searched, this order cannot be maintained and he has accordingly recommended that the accused be tried in both the cases.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) IN my opinion two points arise for consideration in this case. Firstly whether the Act applies to the village Parol where Piayroo accused lives and secondly whether the proceedings initiated on the warrant of the Superintendent of Police dated 30th October 1967 are proper, and consequently whether the prosecutions of the 14 accused Under Sections 3/4 of the Act and of the 13 accused under various sections of the Penal Code as mentioned above, are proper and the cases be proceeded with.