JAWAHARLAL JAMNADAS RATHI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prosecution case, in brief, was that the accused in Criminal Revision Application No. 123 of 1975, namely Jawaharlal Jamnadas Rathi, had taken on rent first and second floors of the building situated in Ward No. 2, Marwadi galli, situated at Wardha, owned by one Thakre. According to the prosecution, Police Sub-Inspector Patil (P.W. 4) received information that the said Jawaharlal is keeping a common gaming house in that building. Therefore, on 24th July 1971, he approached the Superintendent of Police, Wardha and obtained a warrant from him under section 6 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 referred to hereinafter as "the Act". On 29th July 1971, at about 23 hours Police Sub-Inspector Patil with Police Sub-Inspector Sonawane (P.W. 3), the other staff and the witnesses raided the said building. The warrant was shown to accused Jawaharlal and other persons. Some of the accused were seen gaming on the first floor and some of them on the second floor. According to the prosecution they were sitting around and gambling with cards. The counters were used for gambling and they were ultimately seized on the search being made by the police officers. The prosecution further alleged that Police Sub-Inspector Sonawane carried out the search on the first floor and Police Sub-Inspector Patil at the same time conducted the search on the second floor. The cards and other instruments of gaming were found there, The same were duly seized along with the money and the seizure memo; and the panchanamas were then duly prepared. After completing the investigation the accused persons were prosecuted for offences punishable under sections 4 and 5 of the Act.

(2.) It appears from the record that in all 3 different cases were started in this behalf. The persons who were found gaming on the first floor were prosecuted in Criminal Case No. 91 of 1972. The other persons who were gambling with cards on the second floor were prosecuted in Criminal Case No. 92 of 1972. These prosecutions were under section 5 of the Act, whereas accused Jawaharlal Rathi was prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 4 of the Act in Criminal Case No. 90 of 1972. It further appears from the record that all these cases were tried together and common evidence was recorded.

(3.) The accused persons pleaded not guilty and denied the charges levelled against them. In support of its case the prosecution examined Krishnarao (P.W. 1) a Panch witness, Vinayak (P.W. 2), another Panch, who was declared hostile, Shankar Sonawane (P.W. 3), the Police Sub-Inspector and Shiwaji Patil (P.W. 4), another Police Sub-Inspector. Apart from this oral evidence, the prosecution also relied upon the documentary evidence, including the seizure memos and the panchanamas. The accused did not examine any witness in their defence, though accused Jawaharlal filed a written-statement.