The court found no sufficient evidence to support the conviction under gaming and lottery statutes, emphasizing the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the judgment dated 05.08.2010 passed in Crl.A.No.225 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, in confirming the conviction and sentence for the alleged offence punishable under Section 9 (1) of Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act (for brevity ‘the Gaming Act’) and Section 4 (i)(c) of Andhra Pradesh Lotteries Act (for brevity ‘the Lotteries Act’), imposed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, in C.C.No.709 of 2007 dated 21.10.2009, whereby and whereunder the petitioner/accused was convicted under Section 255(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ for the offence punishable under Section 9 (1) of ‘the Gaming Act’ and for 4(i)(c) of ‘the Lotteries Act’ to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.100/- and under Section 9 (1) of ‘the Gaming Act’ and for one year simple imprisonment and Rs.2,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 4 (i)(c) of ‘the Lotteries Act’.

2. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Mr.Ismail, learned counsel representing Smt. D.Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, submits that even though no offence was committed by the petitioner as per the charges framed, the learned Trial Court without going into the ingredients of the offences as to whether they were made out, erroneously convicted and sentenced the petitioner, there was no complaint from the public with regard to the running of lotteries by the petitioner, the learned Judge failed to appreciate that P.W.Nos.1 and 2 had not stated anything about the petitioner conducting lotteries; previous and subsequent conduct of the petitioner was not considered, it was erred in believing the seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 from the house of the petitioner, and urged to allow the Criminal Revision Case by setting aside the conviction and sentence for the offences charged and acquit the petitioner.

4. Per contra, Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges under Sections 9 (1) of the ‘the Gaming Act’ and Section 4 (i)(c) of ‘the Lotteries Act’; there was no misreading of evidence; no violation of principles of natural justice; no flagrant miscarriage of justice and urged to dismiss this Criminal Revision Case.

5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent. Perused the record.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the judgment in C.C.No.709 of 2007, dated 21.10.2009, passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?”

7. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the petitioner had examined P.W.Nos.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 and M.Os 1 and 2. P.W-1 by name Pentakoti Apparao testified before the learned Trial Court that the petitioner was talking over cell phone and Police came there and caught hold of him, he did not know the reason that Police recovered cell phone and cash. Police arrested the petitioner on the ground that he was playing single num