- (1.) THIS is an appeal by the State from the appellate order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Ambala, made on January 5, 1962, acquitting the respondent of an offence Under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 (Act 5 of 1867), as amended by the Punjab Public Gambling Acts of 1929 (Punjab Act I of 1929) and i960 (Punjab Act 9 of i960), of which offence the respondent Shad been convicted by the trial Magistrate on June 12, 1961, and sentenced to rigorous imprison-intent for one month, the learned Magistrate being of the opinion that sentence of fine of a few rupees in the case of a dare gambler does not matter it such and serves no purpose,
(2.) ON April 4, 1961, Sub-Inspector Kartai Singh P. W. 1, with a few police officers, was on patrol duty in Rupar when he received secret in-formation that Gianda Ram respondent was accepting stakes or bets for dara, or what is sometimes described as devastate, gambling on a public road mear the telephone exchange, in the vicinity of which he was moving about. The Sub-Inspector organized a raid party and co-opted, apart from -the officers with him, Rakha Singh P. W. 2, Ambardar Badan Singh P. W. 3, and Lambardar 'ujagar Singh P. W. 4 in this. Rakha Singh P. W. 2 was to be the bogus -dara gambler. There was nothing in the shape of anoney or any paper on him when his person was searched. He was given a one-rupee currency note bearing number P/78 686910 with the initials -of the Sub-Inspector 'k. S' and he was directed to stake two annas on each of the numbers 28 and 40 with the respondent. It was arranged "that after he had laid the bet he would make a sign, when the raiding party would proceed to -apprehend the respondent. Accordingly he laid two bets or stakes in the amount of two annas -each on numbers 28 and 40 with the respondent. He gave the one rupee currency note to the respondent, who retained the currency note and foui annas, returning to him change of twelve annas. The respondent gave slip P. 2 to Rakha Singh P. W. 2 with the entries '40/-/2/- and 28/-/2/-, dated 4th April, 1961' with his signature on it. After the bet had been laid Rakha Singh "p. W. 2 made the agreed signal, whereupon the "sub-Inspector and the witnesses approached the respondent and apprehended him. On the person of the- respondent, on search, were found a sum of Rs. 1-10-0 including the one-rupee currency note bearing number P/78 686910, P. I, and a piece of paper, P. 4, on which were noted the. numbers on which bet or stakes had been laid by various persons with the amount laid on each number, 11/-i/-, is/-/2/ -. 13/-/2/-, 14/-/. 1 /-, 16/-/2/, 18/72/-, 31. /.-/3/.-, 44/-V. 4/ -. ai/-/3/ -. 34/-/a/-, 38/-/2/r, 40/-7. 2/ -. ' The first figure shows the number of stake or the number on which bet was laid, and the second figure gives the amount laid on the stake or bet. A pencil was also recovered at the same time. The memorandum is Exhibit P. C. The Sub-Inspector proceeded to register a case Under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867, against the respondent.
(3.) AT the trial, Lambardar Ujagar Singh P. W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination, but was not cross-examined, and the other witnesses deposed to the facts as given above. The respondent denied the very occurrence and his apprehension in the manner and under the circumstances as deposed to by the witnesses. He said that it was a false case againt him and he was called at the police station and then falsely implicated. On the two witnesses produced by him in defence, Lai Chand Malhotra D. W. 2 says nothing so far as the apprehension of the respondent and the recovery of the articles referred to from him are concerned, Ram Parshad D. W. 1 says that on April 4, 1961, at about 5 p. m. , he went to (he shop of the respondent and purchased ice from him. While he was there a head constable of police came and took the respondent to the police station. He says that one Prem Chand Bhabden was also there, but this man has not been examined as a witness in the case. The respondent was apprehended at about 6 or 6-30 p. m. , and the actual time given by the witness does not, therefore, fit in with the manner of arrest of the respondent. Besides the respondent never stated in his statement Under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code that he was taken from his shop to the police station when this witness was present at his shop. The learned trial Magistrate was thus right in discarding the testimony of this witness as unreliable.;