J.M.L. Sinha, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1 -6 -1966 passed by Sri C.P. Dwivedi, a Magistrate 1st Class at Meerut acquitting the Respondent of the offence Under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal can briefly be stated as under: On 10 -7 -1965 near about 8.30 PM Sri Rajpat Singh, Head Constable, received information through an informer that Mangat Respondent along with Puran was doing satta khai bari near railway road, Hapur. The Head Constable, therefore, picked up two witnesses and proceeded in the direction of railway road, Hapur. On reaching the place of occurrence the party took cover behind a wall and saw the Respondent taking down the bets on a slip of paper and Puran realising money from the person who was making the bets. The Police party was able to arrest Mangat Respondent. Puran and the person who was laying the bets were however able to mate good their escape. On a search of Mangat Respondent he was found in possession of small change of Rs. 6/12/ -, a fountain pen, four Parcha sattas and three plain parchas. A memo was prepared in evidence of the recovery and the articles recovered were sealed on the spot. The Respondent along with the recovered articles was then taken to the Police Station concerned where a report was made by the Head Constable. A case Under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act was registered on the basis thereof. The case was investigated into by Harpal Singh SI (PW 4) who submitted a charge -sheet for the prosecution of the Respondent and that of Puran. The latter died during the pendency of the case with the result that the case proceeded only against Mangat Respondent. The defence set up by the Respondent was a total denial of the prosecution case.
(3.) THE trial court on a consideration of the evidence on record remarked that the case against the Appellant rested only on the recovery of parcha sattas. Placing reliance on the case Habib v. State, 1966 ALJ 176 :, 1965 AWR 761 the learned Magistrate concluded that mere possession of parcha satta did not constitute an offence Under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act and in the result, acquitted the Respondent. Feeling aggrieved against the decision of the trial court the State filed an appeal in this Court.;