Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mehar Singh and Gurdev Singh JJ.
State
Versus
Gainda Ram Siri Ram
Decided On : MAY 30, 1963
PUBLIC GAMBLING ACT - SECTION 13 - GAMING - DARA OR DARASATTA GAMBLING - EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 13 - PUBLIC GAMBLING ACT, 1867 (ACT 5 OF 1867) - PUNJAB PUBLIC GAMBLING ACTS OF 1929 (PUNJAB ACT I OF 1929) AND 1960 (PUNJAB ACT 9 OF 1960).
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was apprehended while accepting stakes or bets for dara gambling on a public road. A bogus gambler was sent to stake two annas each on numbers 28 and 40 with the respondent, who accepted the bets, took the currency note, returned the change, and gave the bogus gambler a slip with the entries 40.00 /2.00 and 28.00 /2.00, dated 4th April, 1961 with his signature on it. On the respondent's person, a search revealed the currency note, a piece of paper with notes on gambling transactions, and a pencil.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent was in fact gambling while accepting stakes or bets in regard to dara gambling when he accepted such bets from the bogus gambler. The court held that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was reliable and that the respondent's defense witnesses were not credible. The court also found that the facts of the case were distinguishable from those in Tar Sen Lal V/s. State, in which the accused was acquitted, as in the present case, the bogus gambler had specifically asked the respondent to stake the amounts on given numbers and the respondent had accepted the stakes and given a slip showing the numbers and amounts staked.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent was gambling while accepting stakes or bets in regard to dara gambling? 2. Whether the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was reliable? 3. Whether the defense witnesses were credible? 4. Whether the facts of the case were distinguishable from those in Tar Sen Lal V/s. State?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the respondent was gambling while accepting stakes or bets in regard to dara gambling based on the following evidence: - The testimony of the prosecution witnesses, which the court found to be reliable, established that the respondent accepted bets from the bogus gambler, took the currency note, returned the change, and gave the bogus gambler a slip with the entries of the bets. - The recovery of the currency note, the piece of paper with notes on gambling transactions, and the pencil from the respondent's person further corroborated the prosecution's case. 2. The court found the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to be reliable based on the following factors: - The witnesses were consistent in their statements and their testimony was corroborated by the documentary evidence. - The witnesses had no motive to falsely implicate the respondent. 3. The court found the defense witnesses to be not credible based on the following factors: - The defense witnesses were related to the respondent and had a motive to lie to protect him. - The testimony of the defense witnesses was contradicted by the prosecution evidence. 4. The court found that the facts of the case were distinguishable from those in Tar Sen Lal V/s. State based on the following factors: - In Tar Sen Lal V/s. State, the bogus gambler had not specifically asked the accused to stake the amounts on given numbers, whereas in the present case, the bogus gambler had specifically asked the respondent to stake the amounts on given numbers. - In Tar Sen Lal V/s. State, the accused had not given the bogus gambler a slip showing the numbers and amounts staked, whereas in the present case, the respondent had given the bogus gambler a slip showing the numbers and amounts staked.
Final Decision: The court convicted the respondent under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867, as amended in the Punjab, and sentenced him to one month's rigorous imprisonment.
Mehar Singh, J.
1. This is an appeal by the State from the appellate order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Ambala, made on January 5, 1962, acquitting the respondent of an offence Under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 (Act 5 of 1867), as amended by the Punjab Public Gambling Acts of 1929 (Punjab Act I of 1929) and 1960 (Punjab Act 9 of i960), of which offence the respondent Shad been convicted by the trial Magistrate on June 12, 1961, and sentenced to rigorous imprison-intent for one month, the learned Magistrate being of the opinion that sentence of fine of a few rupees in the case of a dare gambler does not matter it such and serves no purpose,
2. On April 4, 1961, Sub-Inspector Kartai Singh P. W. 1, with a few police officers, was on patrol duty in Rupar when he received secret in-formation that Gianda Ram respondent was accepting stakes or bets for dara, or what is sometimes described as devastate, gambling on a public road mear the telephone exchange, in the vicinity of which he was moving about. The Sub-Inspector organized a raid party and co-opted, apart from -the officers with him, Rakha Singh P. W. 2, Ambardar Badan Singh P. W. 3, and Lambardar Ujagar Singh P. W. 4 in this.
Rakha Singh P. W. 2 was to be the bogus -dara gambler. There was nothing in the shape of anoney or any paper on him when his person was searched. He was given a one-rupee currency note bearing number P/78 686910 with the initials -of the Sub-Inspector K.S and he was directed to stake two annas on each of the numbers 28 and 40 with the respondent. It was arranged "that after he had laid the bet he would make a sign, when the raiding party would proceed to -apprehend the respondent. Accordingly he laid two bets or stakes in the amount of two annas -each on numbers 28 and 40 with the respondent. He gave the one rupee currency note to the respondent, who retained the currency note and foui annas, returning to him change of twelve annas. The respondent gave slip P. 2 to Rakha Singh P. W. 2 with the entries 40.00 /2.00 and 28.00 /2.00 , dated 4th April, 1961 with his signature on it.
After the bet had been laid Rakha Singh "P. W. 2 made the agreed signal, whereupon the "Sub-Inspector and the witnesses approached the respondent and apprehended him. On the person of the- respondent, on search, were found a sum of Rs. 1-10-0 including the one-rupee currency note bearing number P/78 686910, P.I, and a piece of paper, P. 4, on which were noted the .numbers on which bet or stakes had been laid by various persons with the amount laid on each number, 11.00 i/-, is/-/2.00 . 13.00 /2.00 , 14.00 /.1 /-, 16.00 /2/, 18/72.00 , 31./.-/3/.-, 44.00 V. 4.00 . ai/-/3.00 . 34.00 /a/-, 38.00 /2/r, 40.00 7.2.00 . The first figure shows the number of stake or the number on which bet was laid, and the second figure gives the amount laid on the stake or bet. A pencil was also recovered at the same time.
The memorandum is Exhibit P. C. The Sub-Inspector proceeded to register a case Under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 , against the respondent.
3. At the trial, Lambardar Ujagar Singh P. W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination, but was not cross-examined, and the other witnesses deposed to the facts as given above. The respondent denied the very occurrence and his apprehension in the manner and under the circumstances as deposed to by the witnesses. He said that it was a false case againt him and he was called at the police station and then falsely implicated. On the two witnesses produced by him in defence, Lai Chand Malhotra D. W. 2 says nothing so far as the apprehension of the respondent and the recovery of the articles referred to from him are concerned, Ram Parshad D. W. 1 says that on April 4, 1961, at about 5 p.m., he went to (he shop of the respondent and purchased ice from him. While he was there a head constable of police came and took the respondent to the police station. He says that one Prem Chand Bhabden was also there, but this
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
