PYARELAL GOKULPRASAD Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision the accused having been convicted under Section 4(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, Bombay Act IV of 1887, and fined Rs. 80.

(2.) The facts shortly are that Sub-Inspector Sawant gave three marked coins to a man named Bhagvatiprasad and he saw Bhagvatiprasad go into the accused's shop. Bhagvatiprasad says that he went to the shop and made bets with the marked coins on Nos. 4, 6 and 8, that being, I understand, a form of betting on American futures. After Bhagvatiprasad came out of the accused's shop it was raided by the Police and two of the marked coins were found in the accused's shop.

(3.) The accused set up a different story as to the way in which he procured the marked coins, but he called no evidence, and the learned Magistrate accepted the evidence of the prosecution and disbelieved the the defence evidence. The evidence was not perhaps very strong but at the same time, in revision, I am not prepared to say that the evidence of Bhagvatiprasad was not sufficiently corroborated by the evidence of Sub-Inspector Sawant and the finding of the marked coins to justify the learned Magistrate in accepting the prosecution story. We cannot interfere in revision with facts, and must find that the prosecution case was proved.