The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were engaged in activities prohibited by the relevant legislation, and the court must carefully evaluate the evidence presented.

JUDGMENT

Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J. - This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking order quashing the judgement passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Cooch Behar in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2003 affirming the judgement and order of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Cooch Behar in G.R. Case No. 351/02 (T.R. No. 14 of 2003 on 19th November, 2003).

2. Briefly stated, on 14th October, 2001 at about 22.15 hours Town Sub- Inspector of Police held a raid in the house of Uttam Harijan and found four persons including Uttam were playing cards in lieu of money, using the said house as common gaming house. The persons engaged in gambling made an unsuccessful attempt to flee the place of occurrence. All of them were rounded up and police arrested 52 pieces of playing cards, one candle and a sum of Rs. 7210/- as alamat and board money.

3. On the basis of information given by S.I. Suroj Thakuri, Kotwali P.S. Case No. 344 of 2002 was registered on 15th October, 2002. Police took up investigation, submitted charge sheet against all the four accused persons under Section 3/4/11 of West Bengal Gambling and Prize Competition Act, 1957.

4. The charge was framed against all the accused persons under Section 3/4/11 of West Bengal Gambling and Prize Competition Act, 1957 pleading their innocence, the accused persons claimed to be tried.

5. In course of trial prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses. All of them were police personnel and members of the raiding team.

6. Learned Trial Court having considered the evidence adduced by prosecution witness was pleased to record an order of conviction against all the four accused persons. Accused Uttam Harijan was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for six months for committing offence under Section 3 of the West Bengal Gambling and Prize Competition Act and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and all other accused persons including Uttam Harijan were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for committing offence under Section 4 of the West Bengal Gambling and Prize Competition Act and they are further directed to pay 200/- each for committing offence under Section 11 of the West Bengal Gambling and Prize Competition Act.

7. The aggrieved convicts preferred an appeal against the judgement and order of conviction of the Trial Court before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract, 1st Court, Cooch Behar.

8. Learned Appellate Court, however, did not find any merit in appeal and maintained the order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court.

9. Hence by filing the application under consideration, the petitioners are inviting the Court to quash the judgement passed by the learned Appellate Court affirming the order of conviction passed by learned Trail Court.

10. Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not playing cards in lieu of money or in other words they were not engaged in gambling rather they being the organizers of Durga Puja and Uttam Harijan being the treasurer were engaged in the affair of Durga Puja, while police rounded them up and seized the money collected as donation for the purpose of Puja and showed the said donation as board money to book them with criminal liability. According to Mr. Chatterjee there was no common gaming house as defined under the West Bengal Gambling and Prize Competition Act, 1957. The incident took place on the day of Navami Puja at about quarter past ten but no independent witness was cited as witness to the seizure. According to Mr. Chatterjee both the Courts below did not have any reason to record an order of conviction rather benefit of doubt could have been extended to the convict petitioners.

11. Refuting such contention learned Advocate Mr. R. Roychowdhury representing State submits that in absence of any evidence to show any special reason, the witnesses being p