STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. TARACHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against an Order of the City Magistrate, Jaipur dated 1st June, 1956 by which Tara Chand was acquitted for the reason that the prosecuting Sub-Inspector had failed to furnish copies of the documents filed with the complaint to the accused.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that in pursuance of a warrant issued by the District superintendent of Police, Jaipur, certain premises were searched on 5th May, 1956 by Sri Jaisingh Sub-Inspector, incharge of the police station, Kotwali, Jaipur, under section 5 of the Gambling Act and Tarachand was arrested and certain instruments of gambling found on the premises were taken possession of by the police. Tarachand was produced before the Magistrate by Sri Jaisingh and a complaint was filed by him against the accused. On the date fixed for hearing of the case the Magistrate examined the accused who pleaded not guilty. The Court then directed the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector to furnish copies of the prosecution documents to the accused, but he failed to comply with the order of the Court on the ground that the case was not a cognizable one and that there was no obligation on the prosecution to furnish such copies to the accused. The magistrate then recorded an order of acquittal on the ground that the prosecution had failed to furnish copies of the documents to the accused under Section 173, cr. P. C.

(3.) IN this appeal it has been urged on behalf of the State that a case under sections 3 and 4 of the Gambling Act cannot be regarded as a cognizable one and the provisions of Section 173, Cr. P. C. , do not apply to such a case. It is also urged that there being no obligation on the prosecution to furnish copies of its documents to the accused the order of the Magistrate acquitting the accused for this reason is illegal and deserves to be set aside in this appeal.