Back
2015 Supreme(MP) 1216
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
C. V. SIRPURKAR, J.
KAILASH CHAND JAIN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M. P. – Respondent
Cr. R. No. 2270 of 2013
Decided On : 07-12-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ajay Raizada
For the Respondent: K. S. Patel
The main legal point established is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially regarding the nature of seized items as instruments of gaming.
Headnote:
Public Gambling Act - Conviction under sections 3 and 4 - [3, 4, 4-A] - The court analyzed the provisions of the Public Gambling Act and found that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court highlighted the lack of evidence to establish that the seized items were instruments of gaming, leading to the reversal of the conviction and the order of forfeiture.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted under sections 3 and 4 of the Public Gambling Act based on a raid at his house where gaming-related items and cash were seized. The accused denied involvement in gaming and claimed malicious prosecution by the police.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the lack of evidence to establish the seized items as instruments of gaming.
Issues: The issues included defective particulars of the offence, lack of evidence of active gaming during the raid, and the credibility of witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient evidence to establish the seized items as instruments of gaming.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal revision, setting aside the conviction, the sentence of fine, and the order of forfeiture. The accused was entitled to the seized amount.
JUDGMENT :
1. This criminal revision filed on behalf of the revisionist/accused Kailash Chand Jain is preferred against the order dated 7-9-2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2013, passed by the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni, whereby conviction and sentence of revisionist Kailash Chand Jain under sections 3 and 4 of the Public Gambling Act imposed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Seoni in Criminal Case No. 4050/2008, by judgment dated 5-3-2013, was affirmed.
2. The case of prosecution before the learned Magistrate may be summarized as hereunder : on 6-6-2008 Town Inspector of P.S. Kotwali, Seoni, received an information from the informant to the effect that accused/revisionist Kailash Chand Jain runs business of gaming (Satta) on telephone and mobile phone from his house. He keeps his house closed so as to ward off a raid by police. He has purchaseed properties on a large scale from the business of gaming (Satta). It was further informed by the informant that he goes to the temple every morning and after returning from temple he takes account of the earnings from gaming and receives the disburses the amount.
3. On aforesaid information, on 7-6-2008 Town Inspector Basant Naik took independent witnesses Pramod Kumar and Jagdish Prasad and apprised them of aforesaid information. He duly obtained a search warrant and constituted a raid party comprising Sub-Inspector Hitendra Nath Sharma, Head Constable Ramesh Maneshwar and seven other Constables and a Home Guard and raided the house of the accused/ revisionist. They reached the spot by official vehicle at about 9:25 am. On entering the house and taking search of second room, they found handwritten gaming slips containing names of certain persons and figures (Satta Patti), a mobile phone, one landline telephone and Rs. 83,830/- in cash lying on the bed. Apart from aforesaid, several bank pass books, documents and revenue documents relating to land, postal pass books, insurance policies, fixed deposit receipts and Kisan Vikas Patra etc. reflecting income earned from gaming business, were discovered in the house and duly seized.
4. A First Information Report under sections 3 and 4-A were registered against the revisionist and a charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate first class was filed. Learned Magistrate explained particulars of charge to the revisionist under sections 3 and 4(5) of the Public Gambling Act, who abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. He took the defence to the effect that he had made a complaint against the police; therefore, the police force of Seoni forcibly entered his house and took away 12 tolas gold ornaments and Rs. 1.5 lakhs in cash and falsely implicated him in this case. The police has shown a lessor amount in seizure memo then the one actually seized. He is innocent. He does not indulge in gaming. He and all the family members are traders and earned their living honestly. The revisionist also examined three witnesses in defence.
5. After trial, learned Magistrate found the offence under sections 3 and 4 of the Public Gambling Act proved beyond doubt against the revisionist and imposed a fine of Rs. 1000/- under section 3 and a fine of Rs. 500/- under section 4 of Public Gambling Act and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further period of simple imprisonment of one month and 15 days respectively. In addition thereto, the amount of Rs. 83,830/- recovered from the revisionist was also forfeited in favour of the State.
6. The revisionist challenged the judgment dated 5-3-2013 passed by the learned Magistrate before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sioni, Who affirmed conviction under sections 3 and 4 of the Public Gambling Act, as also the sentence of fine so imposed. The forfeiture of the seized amount of Rs. 83,830/- was also upheld.
7. The judgment passed by the learned Additional Judge, has been challenged in this criminal revision mainly on following grounds :
(a) The particulars of offence a
