- (1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of Ramzia and others by the Sessions Judge of Bikaner. The accused were convicted under secs. 3 and 4 in the case of Ramzia and under sec. 4 with respect to the others by a magistrate of the first class, Bikaner. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted them all on the ground that the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949 (Ordinance No. XLVIII of 1949) (hereinafter called the Ordinance) was not in force in that area. He did not go into the merits of the case at all.
(2.) WE are of opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge that the Ordinance is not in force in that area is not correct. Sec. 1 of the Ordinance provides that secs. 13 and 17 would come into force at once. The remaining sections were to come into force by notification in the Rajasthan Gazette. The case of the State was that the notification was issued by order dated the 20th of July 1951 published in the Rajasthan Gazette of 28th of July, 1951 at page 419. This notification is No. F. I (200) Police 1/50 and says that in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec. (2) of sec. 1 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949, the Government of Rajasthan is pleased to extend all the remaining sections of the Ordinance to the areas mentioned in the annexed schedule. Unfortunately, though there is a list of places attached to this order, it is not headed 'schedule'. The heading is in there words - "list of places where the Extension of the Rajasthan Gambling Ordinance, 1949, is suggested". The learned Sessions Judge has held, in view of this heading that there is no schedule to this order and, therefore, the remaining sections of the Ordinance never came into force in Bikaner City, though Bikaner, City is mentioned in this list. The answer to the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is two fold. In the first place, we refer to a correction dated 20th of August, 1951 appearing in the Rajasthan Gazette of September 1. 1951 at page 500. It is No. F. 1 (2) (200) Police-C/i/50. It says that in the Schedule annexed to this Department's notification of even number, dated the 20th July, 1951, for the words "list of places where the extension of the Rajasthan Gambling Ordinance, 1949, is suggested", the word 'schedule' shall be substituted. When this Correction was made, it is obvious that the law was in force at any rate from the 1st of September 1951. The present offence is alleged to have taken place in 1953 and, therefore, the law was in force in Bikaner City in 1953. In the second place, we are of opinion that reading the notification dated 20th of July, 1951 as a whole, there can be no doubt that there was a schedule annexed to it, though by some mistake of the office, that schedule was headed "list of places where the extension of the Rajasthan Gambling Ordinance, 1949 is suggested. " But merely, because there was mistake in this heading, it could tot be said that there was no schedule attached to this order dated the 20th of July, 1951. This notification is from pages 419 to 423 and the next notification is No. F. 2 (11) Police 1/51 which appears at page 423, Therefore, we are of opinion that the learned Judge was wrong in saying that there was no schedule annexed to the notification of the 20th July, 1951. There was a schedule in fact annexed to it though it was wrongly headed. It may be mentioned that the dictionary meaning of the word "schedule" is list and this is the heading that was given. What appears is that some clerk made the mistake of retaining the heading as it must have been sent to the Secretariat in all probability from the Police Department suggesting the places to which the law was to be extended. But there is no doubt that the notification dared the 20th of July, 1951, did extend the law to the places mentioned in the list annexed to it. We are, therefore, of opinion that even without the correction of the 20th of August, 1951, the remaining sections of the Ordinance were brought into force from the 28th of July, 1951, on which date this notification appeared in the Gazette. We may also add that if the learned Judge was of the view that the remaining sections of the Ordinance had not been extended to the City of Bikaner, the earlier law, namely, the Bikaner Gambling Act (we are told that there was such an Act) would remain in force in view of the second paragraph of sec. 1, sub-sec. (2) and there would be no vacuum as the learned Judge seems to have thought, , The acquittal must, therefore, be set aside. As the merits of the case have not been considered, we send the appeal back to the Sessions Judge of Bikaner for hearing on the merits. . ;