EMPEROR Vs. BASANT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Provincial Government against a finding of acquittal recorded by a Bench of Honorary Magistrates in a case in which two persons, Basant Lal and Earn Sanehi, who are the respondents in this appeal, were prosecuted by the police on a charge under Section 3, Public Gambling Act (3 of 1867). There can be little doubt about the facts of the case as found by the learned Magistrates. It appears from the evidence on the record that a warrant under Section 5 of the Act was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Etawah, to the City Kotwal, B. Eaghupal Singh, authorising him to search the shop of Basant Lal . Basant Lal keeps a cloth shop in the city of Etawah and Earn Sanehi, the other respondent, is employed at that shop as a servant. The police had received information that the shop was being used as a place for "satta" gambling and had consequently obtained the warrant stated above from the Superintendent of Police. This warrant was executed on the evening of 17 October 1939. Before executing this warrant, the police officer named above had, in order to assure himself, sent a man named Sital with some marked coins consisting of four 2 anna bits and two 1 anna bits in order to lay a bet at the shop of Basant Lal . Sital had Lal n a bet accordingly and had gone back and informed the police officer that he had done so. Then the police officer proceeded to the shop and found six persons there, namely the two respondents Basant Lal and Earn Sanehi, a man named Bhikka, who has appeared as a witness for the prosecution, and three other persons with whom we are not concerned in this case. It appears that Bhikka was at that very time engaged in laying a bet. He had just paid a sum of Rs. 7-8-0 to the respondent Basant Lal and certain numbers which he had mentioned had been noted down on a slip of paper by the respondent Earn Sanehi.

(2.) It was at this stage that the police officer arrived at the shop and immediately seized the sum of Rs. 7-8-0 from the hand of the respondent Basant Lal and the slip of paper on which the four numbers mentioned by Bhikka were noted, from the hand of the respondent Earn Sanehi. Bhikka, as stated above, is a witness for the prosecution and ha has clearly stated that he had made what is generally known in those parts as a "dara bid." From the slip of paper in which the numbers given by him were noted by the rsspondent Earn Sanehi it appears that Bhikka had staked a sum of Rs. 1-14-0 on each of four different numbers, namely, 56, 87, 88 and 92. Bhikka has explained in his evidence that he was to get Ks. 150 for the stake of Re. 1-14-0 in the case of any one of those numbers proving to be the winning number. It is true that he has not stated in his evidence how the winning number was to be ascertained, but he has stated that it was a "dara bid" and it appears to be a matter of common knowledge in that part of the province what a "dara bid" is.

(3.) We may mention here that "dara bid" has been referred to and described at some length in Lachhi Ram V/s. Emperor . In fact, we may state further that that case fully covers the facts of the present one. On a search of the shop a number of slips?15 in all?including the slip containing the four numbers mentioned by Bhikka, were recovered, six from underneath a pillow against which the respondent Basant Lal was resting, four from underneath a small wooden box placed near by and four from the possession of respondent Earn Sanehi, besides Bhikka's slip which is Ex. P-2 on the record and which was recovered in the circumstances already stated. We have examined all these slips very carefully and we find it a very significant fact that upon every slip, other than that relating to Bhikka, a certain name was always mentioned as that of the person on whose behalf certain bids of certain amounts on certain numbers had been made. In the slip relating to Bhikka we find only four numbers and the amount of Re. 1-14-0 against each number, but there is no name of the person by whom or on whose behalf the bids had been made. This fits in entirely with the story given by Bhikka in his evidence, for he states that the police arrived on the scene just as he was paying Bs. 7-8-0 to the respondent Basant Lal and had mentioned the four numbers to the respondent Ram Sanehi who had noted them down ona, slip of paper. This shows that the police happened to arrive on the scene before Bhikka could give the name of the person by whom or on whose behalf the bids were being made. Besides the evidence of Bhikka, to which we have referred in some detail, we find also on the record the evidence of the police officer and a witness named Bankey Lal to prove the search and the circumstances in which the slips were recovered from the two respondents.