As accused I was acquitted by the appellate Court of the offence under section 8 of the Madras Gaming Act, though it was admittedly his own house and he permitted the gaming therein, obviously on the ground that it was not proved to be “a common gaming-house,” it follows that all the accused should also have been acquitted of the offence under section 9 which will apply only to gaming in “a common gaming-house.” There has been also no appeal against the acquittal of accused 1 regarding section 8 by the State. So, the reference by the Sessions Judge, North Malabar, is right. When the trunk is cut and falls, the branches will fall by themselves. Though accused 3 and 4 did not appeal, and are not represented before me by any counsel (possibly due to poverty, ignorance of law, despair, etc.). I see no reason why I should reject the reference as regards them alone when there is no difference between their case and the case of accused 1 and 2, in law and in fact, and when Order 41, rule 33, Civil Procedure Code, allows a Court to interfere in the interests of justice for the benefit of even ex parte defendants who have not appealed, and the powers of a Criminal Court of justice, i