- (1.) THIS is an application in revision by Gulab.
(2.) IT appears that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Beawar, on receiving credible information that one Heraa Mali was using his cabin as a common gaming house, issued a warrant of search to the Station House Officer, Beawar. The Station House Officer gave one initialled one-rupee note to one Feqir Mohammed and directed him to stake it at the cabin of Hema Mali. Faquir Mohammed accordingly went to Hema's cabin and staked one-rupee on figure '2' with petitioner Gulab, who was also sitting inside Hema's cabin. After handing over the currency note, Faqir Mohammed gave the pre-arranged signal which brought the police officer at the cabin. Both Hema and Gulab tried to escape from the cabin but Gulab was apprehended by the police near the cabin. Hema was arrested afterwards. A complaint under sec. 3 and 4 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949, was presented against Hema and Gulab. The learned Magistrate, after trial, acquitted Hema but convicted Gulab, under sec. 4 of the Ordinance. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer, confirmed the conviction and sentence passed on him. It is not disputed before me that the cabin was being used as a common gaming house. It is also not disputed that the staking of Re. 1/- on figure '2' amounted to gaming as found by the courts below. It is also not disputed that instruments of gaming including the one initialled one-rupee currency note were recovered by the police on search of the cabin. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are: - (1) that the petitioner's conviction under sec. 4 of the Ordinance is bad because he was not physically found inside the cabin when the police officers reached there to execute the warrant. i (2) that Faqir Mohammed being a decoy witness his solitary statement should not be believed without corroboration. Both there contentions are untenable. The expression "being found in any gaming house does not mean that the accused should be physically present there when the search is made by the officer executing the warrant. If the accused is seen coming out of the gaming house by the officer executing the warrant and is apprehended when trying to escape is 'found' in the house within the meaning of sec. 4 of the Ordinance. In support of bis contention learned counsel referred to a decision of this court in Chimanlal Vs. The State (1) particularly to the following observations: - "in has not been proved in this case that when the search was made the applicant was found playing or gaming with cards or was found there present for the purpose of gaming. His conviction under section 4 was therefore not proper. " These observations do not support the view which the learned counsel wants me to take. In that case, the accused was acquitted under sec. 4 of the Ordinance not because he was not physically found in the gaming house but for the reason that he was not found playing or gaming with cards or for the purpose of gaming. Sec. 6 of the Ordinance provides: - "when any cards, gaming-tables, cloths, boards or other instruments of gaming are found in any house, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, space, vessel or place, entered or searched under the provision of the last preceding section, or about the person of any those who are found therein, it shall be evidence, until the contrary is made to appear, that such house, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, space, vessel or place is used as a common gaming house, and that the persons found therein were, there present for the pur pose of gaming, although no play was actually seen by the Magistrate or police officer, or any of his assistants. " Once it is established that the place had been searched under a warrant obtained under sec. 5 of the Ordinance and instruments of gaming are found there, it will be presumed that such place is used as a common gaming house and that the persons found there were present there for the purpose of gaming although they may not have been found actually playing at the time the police officer reached there. In the case relied upon by the learned counsel, provisions of sec. 6 were not referred to. There is ample authority for the view which I have taken. It was observed in Fazal Ahmad Vs. Queen-Empress (2): - "if it were clearly proved, or admitted, that an accused person had been gambling constantly, or up to the very moment of the entry by the police, I do not see under what section he could be convicted, if he succeeded in effecting his escape before the police effected their entry" In Kourna Vs. Queen-Empress (3), it was held: - "being found in a gaming house," it is not necessary that the accused should be actually arrested in the house; a person seen actually in the house by the officer executing the warrant and his assistants at the time of their reaching the house is "found" in the house within the meaning of section 4. " In Emperor Vs. Tribhovan Motiram (4) where the Sub-Inspector of police, who had taken out a warrant, was at a distance of about ten paces from the house, the accused on seeing them came out of the house. They were arrested at some distance from the house. It was held that under the circumstances accused No. 2 who was seen coming out of a common-gaming house could be regarded as 'found' in the gaming house and his arrest was legal. In the present case, Rajendra Shekhar A. S. P. Anti-Corruption Department (P. W. 4) and Ratan Lal, Station House Officer (P. W. 5) both have stated that they saw the petitioner in the cabin and he was caught on the spot when he tried to escape from it. In these circumstances, although he may not have been physically found inside the cabin, yet he would be regarded as being "found" within the meaning of secs. 4 and 6 of the Ordinance. As regards the second contention, it may be noted that Faqir Mohammed's statement is corroborated by the statement of Rajendra Shekhar and Ratanlal, who have stated that they had seen the petitioner inside the cabin. It is further corroborated by the fact that the initialled currency note which was handed over to him, was on search recovered from inside the cabin. The recovery of the initialled currency note establishes in the presence of the petitioner inside the cabin, as also the fact that the currency note was staked with him. It is not necessary that there should be corroboration on every point deposed to by the decoy witness. The above mentioned facts sufficiently corroborate the statement of Faqir Mohammed. The petitioner has been rightly convicted under sec. 4 of the Ordinance. The offence is punishable with a fine exceeding one hundred rupees or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month. In the case of first offences a sentence of fine is suitable. In the present case, the petitioner has already undergone about a week's imprisonment. In the circumstances of the case, the sentence already undergone by him would meet the ends of justice. It is now not necessary to impose any fine on him. The petitioner is on bail and he need not surrender to it. Revision is, therefore, partly allowed. . ;