Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.

These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the common judgment dated 10/12/2001 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 Ajmer ('appellate court" for short hereinafter) passed in Appeal no. 12/2000 by which the order of the conviction and sentence for offence u/ss 3 & 4 of Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance 1949 passed by Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Ajmer ("trial court" for short hereinafter) was affirmed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by Dy. Superintendent of Police, Ajmer (North) about the search taken by him on 1.7.1983 under section 5 of the Rajasthan Gambling Ordinance, 1949 in the house No.42/500, belonging to one Harshwardhen @ Harsi. Certain gold and silver ornaments, cash, gambling stips etc. were recovered from the premises which were being used as to a common gambling house. The house was raided, accused Shankar, Ramchandra and Babu Lal were present in the house for gambling purposes. After usual investigation charge-sheet was submitted. After taking cognizance, the trial court framed charge/s against the accused petitioners, who denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter.

3. The prosecution in support of its case examined five witnesses and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter, the statement of the accused petitioners were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C and in defence no document was submitted.

4. The trial court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted the accused petitioners for the afore-mentioned offence as indicated herein above vide judgment dated 8.6.2000, the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:

vfHk;qDr g"kZo/kZu mQZ gjlh iq= Jh o`ankou VaMu [k=h] fuoklh yk[ku dksVMh] vtesj dks /kkjk&3 vkj0ih0th0vks0 ,oa 2 vfHk;qDr 'kadj iq= y{e.knkl fla/kh fuoklh uyk cktkj vtesj] 3&jkepUnz iq= eaxrjke fla/kh] fuoklh nsgyh xsV] vtesj ,oa 4 & vfHk;qDr ckcwyky iq= eFkqjk izlkn ekyh] fuoklh&598@21 uckc dk csMk ekyh eksgYyk vtesj dks /kkjk 4 vkj0ih0th0vks0 dk nks"kh djkj fn;k tkrk gSA

naMkns'k

vfHk;qDrx.k dks ltk ds iz'u ij lquk x;kA vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us fuosnu fd;k gS fd ;g mudk izFke vijk/k gS] Hkfo"; esa vijk/k dh iqujko`fRr ugha djsaxs] vr% mUgsa ifjoh{kk ij fjgk fd;k tkosA tcfd fo}ku lgk;d yksd vfHk;kstd us mDr cgl dk fojks/k djrs gq, ;g dgk gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k ls Hkkjh ek=k esa :i;s lksus&pkanh ds tsojkr o lV~Vs dh ifpZ;kWa cjken dh xbZ gSa] vr% vfHkq;Drx.k ds fo:) leqfpr naMkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkosA

eSaus mDr cgl ij euu fd;kA vfHk;qDrx.k dks xSEcfyax ds vijk/k dk nks"kh ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gSA bl rjg ds vijk/kksa dk dqizHkko iwjs lekt ij iM+rk gS] vr% mDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, eSa vfHk;qDrx.k dks ifjoh{kk dk ykHk fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha le>rk gwWa ,oa fuEukuqlkj naMkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS&

vfHk;qDr g"kZo/kZu dks /kkjk&3 vkj0ih0th0vks0 ds vijk/k ds fy, 3 ekg ds dBksj dkjkokl ds naM ls ,oa 'ks"k vfHk;qDrx.k 'kadj] jkepUnz ,oa ckcwyky dks /kkjk&4 vkj0ih0th0vks0 ds vijk/k ds fy, izR;sd dks ,d ekg ds dBksj dkjkokl ds naM ls nafMr fd;k tkrk gSA

mDr vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk iwoZ esa U;kf;d vFkok iqfyl vfHkj{kk esa xqtkjh xbZ le;kfof/k] mudh mDr ewy ltk esa lek;ksftr dh tkosxhA

izdj.k esa tIr'kqnk :i;s ,oa lksus pkanh ds tsojkr ckn xqtjus fe;kn vihy tIr ljdkj fd;s tkos ,oa vU; lkexzh fu;ekuqlkj u"V dh tkosA"

5. The accused petitioners aggrieved with the order of conviction dated 8.6.2000 preferred an appeal before the appellant court. The appellate court vide judgment dated 10.12.2001 affirmed the order of the trial court, the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:

"ifj.kkeLo:i vihykFkhZx.k & vfHk;qDrx.k dh vihy lkjghu gksus ls fujLr dh tkrh gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa n.Mkns'k fnukafdr 08-06-2001 ;Fkkor j[kk tkrk gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh bl fu.kZ; dh izfr ds lkFk rqjUr v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa fHktokbZ tkosA"

6. The accused petitioners aggrieved with both the jugments passed by the learned courts below have preferred instant criminal revision peti