RAMLOBHOYA THAKORDAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Click here to view full judgement.
M.U.SHAH, N.K.VAKIL -
(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the order passed by the City Magistrate 3 Court Ahmedabad convicting appellant No. 1 under sec. 4(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act 1887 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten days and convicting appellants Nos. 2 to 13 under sec. 5 of the said Act and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00 in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for seven days.
(2.) The facts that gave rise to the prosecution case are as follows:
It was alleged that appellant No. 1 was in possession of one room in a chawl known as Ram Chawl at Khokhra Mehmadabad wherein with the help of appellant No. 2 gambling was carried on. He used to collect persons there and made profit out of the proceeds of gambling. On receiving information about it on 9th of March 1964 Police Inspector Mankad went to the room with panchas at about 7-30 p. m. and found appellants Nos. 2 to 13 sitting in a circle playing the game of Andar-Bahar a game played for gambling with cards and money. Appellant No. 2 was seen taking Nal money when the game was over. Having watched the game being played the Inspector entered the room with the panchas and after showing the authority to search a search was carried out of the room and the person of all the appellants present there. Card and money were attached which were lying on the ground. Nal money with the metal cup in which it was found and which was with appellant No. 2 and cash found on the person of respective appellants were attached. It is an admitted position that appellant No. 1 was not present at the time of the raid. On these facts all the appellants were put up before the Magistrate to stand their trial.
(3.) All the accused had pleaded not guilty to the charge. The defence of appellant No. 1 was that he was neither in possession nor in occupation of the room in which the raid was made that he had transferred the tenancy and possession of the said room to one Devmani months before the raid was carried out and that he had nothing to do with the game that was being played in the said premises and that he was not guilty of the charge. Appellants Nos. 2 to 13 admitted their presence in the room but each had an explanation to give to show that they were not guilty. Appellant No. 2 stated that he was playing but he was playing some other game. He conceded that he was the secretary of the club where people used to come and play innocent games including those of cards. The name of the club was Vijay Club. Appellants Nos. 3 and 4s case was that they were playing the game of carrom. Appellant Nos. 5 6 and 7s defence was that they were not playing cards but they were playing serpant game (Snakes and ladders). Appellant Nos. 8 9 12 and 13s defence was that they were merely sitting and watching. Appellant No. 10s version was that he had come there only to take the money from appellant No. 2. Appellant No. 11s defence was that he had come there to play some other game.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.