A police officer can arrest without a warrant only if the offence is committed in his view and an offence under section 12 of the Madras Gaming Act is not a cognizable offence.

( 1 ) THIS case has been referred to a Division Bench by our learned brother Manoher Pershad, J. , as it involves an important question of law relating to the interpretation of section 13 of the Madras Gaining Act, 1930. This is an appeal by the State Government against an order of acquittal passed by the First Class Bench Magistrate, Gudivada, in Calendar Case No. 8 of 1956 on his file.

( 2 ) THIS case reveals a regrettable state of affairs and depicts the non-co-operative attitude adopted by some police officers in the conduct of criminal cases before magistrates. The facts are as follows :- on 27th January, 1956, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudivada Town, filed a charge-sheet against the respondent in the Court of the First Class Bench, gudivada, under section 12 of the Madras Gaming Act alleging that on 26th january, 1956 at about 4 P. M. , the respondent was found gaming with cards and money along with some others in Pedayerukapadu fields at Gudivada. Three witnesses were cited for the prosecution : (1) Shri A. Ramasodana Rao, C. I. of police Gudivada Town, (2) Shri M. Srimannarayana, S. I. of Police, C-1 station (he was the Station House Officer who laid the charge-sheet and (3) d. Venkateswararao.

( 3 ) THE history of the case may be set out in chronological order as appears from the calendar. Date of first hearing : 27th January, 1956. 27-1-56 : Accused present. Being questioned he pleaded not guilty. Issue summons to P. Ws. Case adjourned to 3rd February, 1956. Bind over accused. 3-2-56 : Accused present. P. Ws. not present. Summons not returned. Issue fresh summons and obtain acknowledgment of their receipt. Case adjourned to 10th February, 1956. Bind over accused. 10-2-56 : Accused present. P. Ws. not present. Summons not returned. Issue fresh summons and address the C. I. also separately. Case adjourned to 17th February, 1956. Bind over the accused. 17-2-56 : Accused present. P. Ws. not present. C. I. and S. I. were reported as having gone to Masulipatnam. Case adjourned to 24th February, 1956. Bind over accused. Issue summons to P. Ws. through P. C. 2093. 24-2-56 : Accused present. P. Ws. not present. Summons not returned. Issue fresh summons with a D. O. letter to the C. I. of Police. Case adjourned to 2nd March, 1956 in consideration of the Memorandum filed for the S. H. O. Bind over the accused. 2-3-56 : Accused present. P. Ws. not present. Summons not returned. Issue fresh summons with a D. O. letter to the C. I. Case adjourned to 9th March, 1956. Bind over accused. A letter dated 2nd March, 1956 and signed by the Magistrate was addressed to Shri A. Ramasodana Rao, the C. I. of Police :- subject-Courts-Criminal-First Class Bench Court, Gudivada-Non-attendance of P. Ws in P. C. 29 of 1956 and B. C. No. 8 of 1956-Report transmitted. Reference.-Your petty case 29 of 1956 under section 12 of the Madras Gaming Act. "a charge-sheet was filed by the S. H. O. , Gudivada, Town under section 12 of Madras Gaming act against one A. V. Ramayya of Parikipadu. This was taken on file as B. C. No. 8 of 1956 and accused was examined. He denied the offence. Thereon summons were issued to P. Ws. But the s. H. O. Gudivada Town has not attended the Court so far along with P. Ws. to conduct the prosecution. You are also cited as a witness in this case. This case is being adjourned long and inordinately for want of the presence of the P. Ws. I request you to attend the Court on 9th March, 1956 at 7-30 A. M. along with the S. H. O. , Gudivada Town and other P. Ws. as the case was posted to that date for trial. Please treat this as specially urgent". Yours sincerely. (Signed) ----------------- 2nd March, 1956. 9-3-56: Accused present. P. Ws. not present, including the S. H. O. , Gudivada Town. Judgment delivered. Accused acquitted under section 247, Criminal Procedure Code. The order passed by the learned Magistrate is in the following terms :- " The case was called on for hearing today to which it had been adjourned. T