LAWS(RAJ)-1954-11-20

BAJRANGLAL Vs. STATE

Decided On November 26, 1954
BAJRANGLAL Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, in case under the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Gambling Ordinance ). It has been recommended that the conviction and sentence of Bajranglal alias Rajja under sec. 3 and that of Umardin, Wazir, Nathmal, Nandlal and Jaidev under sec. 4 of the Gambling Ordinance be set aside.

(2.) THE case was summarily tried by Shri Karansingh Magistrate First Class, Chirawa. THE allegation against the accused was that Shri Jagannath Prasad S. H. O. , Chirawa, searched the house of Bajranglal on the 21st of February, 1954 under a warrant from Shri Hazarichand. Extramagistrate,chirawa, under sec. 5 of the Gambling Ordinance and found the five accused, Umardin, Wazir, Nathmal, Nandlal and Jaidev gambling with cards and Bajranglal realising commission on account of the said gambling. All the accused admitted that they were in the room occupied by Bajranglal at the time the S. H. O. went there on the date of occurrence, but pleaded that they were there because music was being played. THE learned trial Magistrate was not satisfied that Shri Jagnnath Prasad could validly search the house under the warrant dated the 14th of November, 1953, which had been issued be Shri Hazarichand, Extra Magistrate, Chiraw, a, to Shri Sham Bahadur the then S. H. O. , Chirawa. It was also held that there was nothing to show that the warrant was issued by the Magistrate upon credible information and after such inquiry as the Magistrate thought necessary as required by sec. 5. It was, therefore, held that search was not valid under the said warrant, but the learned Magistrate was satisfied from other evidence that Umardin, Wazir, Nathmal Nandlal and Jaidev were engaged in gambling at the time the Sub-Inspector Shri Jagannath Prasad visited the house and Bajranlal was realising commission. Disregarding the presumption under sec. 6,themagistrate convicted all the six accused on the other evidence regarding actual gambling and realisation of commission, which was produced before him.