In cases involving first-time offenders, courts must mandatorily consider the applicability of probation laws. While statutory presumptions in special statutes support conviction, sentencing should prioritize reformative justice over incarceration unless the offence involves moral depravity or violence.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

Heard Mr. K J Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. S H Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State.

2. By way of this revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused petitioners have assailed the judgment and order dated 23.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Criminal Appeal No. 28(2)/2012, whereby the judgment and order dated 30.04.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh in G.R. Case No. 1017/2009 was affirmed.

3. The brief facts leading to the institution of the present revision petition are that one Sri Jatin Ch. Bora, ASI of Police attached to Dibrugarh Police Station, lodged an Ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge, Dibrugarh Sadar Police Station alleging, inter alia, that on 11.06.2009 at about 5:30 PM, acting upon source information, he along with the Additional Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Dibrugarh and other police personnel conducted a raid at a house situated near the fish market at New Market, Dibrugarh, where the accused petitioners along with another person were allegedly found playing “double gutti”, a form of gambling. Cash money and betting materials were also recovered from their possession.

4. On the basis of the said Ejahar, Dibrugarh Police Station Case No. 281/2009 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1017/2009 was registered under Section 14 of the Assam Games and Betting Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1970 Act”) and investigation was accordingly commenced.

5. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case and, upon completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet under Section 14 of the 1970 Act against the accused petitioners and another co-accused.

6. The learned Trial Court having found a prima facie case, framed charge under Section 14 of the 1970 Act against the accused petitioners, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined four witnesses including the complainant and seizure witnesses. The defence plea was one of total denial. No evidence was adduced by the defence.

8. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, by judgment and order dated 30.04.2012 convicted the accused petitioners under Section 14 of the 1970 Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

9. The appeal preferred by the accused petitioners being Criminal Appeal No. 28(2)/2012 came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh vide judgment and order dated 23.09.2013, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court.

10. Mr. K. J. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioners, submits that the judgments rendered by both, the learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court suffer from perversity and illegality. He contends that the mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 7 of the 1970 Act authorizing entry and search of a betting house was not complied with and, therefore, the entire prosecution stands vitiated. He further