Mul Chand vs The State

S.B. Capoor, J.—Criminal Revisions Nos. 86 and 87 of 1961 have been argued together by the Petitioners'' learned Counsel, Mr. J. K. Khosla, and since they involve common questions of fact and law, it is convenient to dispose of both of them in the course of the following judgment.

These petitions arise from the conviction of each of the Petitioners u/s 13-A of the Public Gambling Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and their sentence of Rs. 25 each, in default of payment of which Mul Chand (Petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 86 of 1961) and Tulsi Ram (Petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 87 of 1961) were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and one week, respectively, Mul Chand having been convicted and sentenced by Shri Aftab Singh, Magistrate First Class, Faridkot, on the 28th of October, 1960, and Tulsi Ram by Shri Jag want Singh, Magistrate First Class, Faridkot, on the 30th of November, 1960. Shri Madan Mohan Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, has recommended in both the cases that in view of the decision in Tarsem Lal v. The State 1959 P.L.R. 439, it cannot be held that from the facts, as proved by the prosecution, the offence u/s 13A of the Act is made out, and that accordingly the conviction of each of the Petitioners be quashed.

I find myself unable to accept the recommendation.

The evidence in each of the two cases has established that the Petitioners were accepting bets on certain numbers, that is,, what is commonly known as satta gambling. In the case as against Mul Chand, Bhola Singh P.W. was the bogus punter and under instructions of Walaiti Ram P.W., Assistant Sub-Inspector, he was sent with a marked currency note of one rupee (Exhibit P. 1) and asked to stake annas eight each on No. 6 and 51, and a memo. (Exhibit P.A.) containing these particulars was prepared. Bhola Singh then went to Mul Chand, and in the presence of Waryam Singh P.W. placed the stakes, as instructed, and was given a chit (Exhibit P.2) by Mul Chand which he brought back to the police. Subsequently, the police searched the preson of the Petitioner and recovered the marked currency note (Exhibit P. 1), the parchi (Exhibit P.3), some cash etc., from his person. Bhola Singh has stated that the Petitioner told him that if any of the numbers on which he had placed the stakes, turned out to be the correct numbers, he would be given Rs. 64, otherwise his currency note of Re. 1 would be forfeited. In the case against Tulsi Ram the evidence is in substance the same, the bogus punter being Sita Ram, who has testified that when he placed the bets with the Petitioner, he was told that in case of success he would receive Rs. 40, otherwise he would lose his one rupee. Ved Parkash, Head Constable, under whose instructions Sita Ram was acting, and Ram Murti P.W.s also supported the prosecution case, and the marked currency note (Exhibit P. 1) Slip (Exhibit P. 3) and certain other articles were recovered on a personal search of the Petitioner.

Each of the Petitioners had denied the prosecution case in its entirety. Mul Chand said that he was taking tea at the shop of Khushi Ram D.W. when the police took him away. Tulsi Ram''s plea was that he was sitting at his own shop when the police caught him.

The trial Courts accepted the prosecution evidence and disbelieved the defence version. The learned Additional Session Judge in his recommendation has no criticism to offer as to the appreciation of evidence by the trial Courts. Nor has that aspect of the case been argued by Mr. J. K. Khosla. The only ground of the recommendation is that on the facts the convictions are not legally sustainable.

The Public Gambling Act (III of 1867), as it originally stood, did not contain any definition of "gaming". However, by Punjab Amendment Act (1 of 1929), "gaming" has been defined so as to include wagering or betting except wagering or betting upon a horse-race when such wagering or betting upon a horse-race takes place (a) on the day oh which such.race is to be run, and (b) in an enclosure which the stewards controlling such race have, with the sanction of the local Government, set apart for the purpose ; but does not include a lottery. By Section 2 of the Public Gambling (Punjab Amendment) Act, 1960 (Punjab Act No. 9 of 1960), the definition of "gaming" has been amended, and after the words "wagering or betting" occurring for the first time and before the word "except", the words "on any figures or numbers or dates to be subsequently ascertained or disclosed, or oh the occurrence or non-occurrence of any natural event, or in any other manner whatsoever" have been inserted. The definition of "gaming" is now a very wide definition and is obviously calculated to hit at what is popularly known as satta gambling. u/s 4 of this amending Act, new Sections 13A and 13B have been inserted in Act III of 1867 along with the substitution of the old Section 13 by the new Section 13. Section 13A provides enhanced punishment for gaming in a public street when it relates to gaming on any figures or numbers or dates to be subsequently ascertained or disclosed. Since the Petitioner in each of the cases under consideration was accepting stakes on ceratin figures or numbers to be subsequently disclosed, he would obviously be liable to punishment u/s 13A read with the amplified definition of "gaming" as introduced by the Public Gambling (Punjab Amendment) Act, 1960.

The authority referred to by the learned Additional Sessions Judge related to a case which was of course before the coming into force of Punjab Act 9 of 1960. In that case the learned Judge observed that the facts did not constitute the offence u/s 13 of the Public Gambling Act because the prosecution evidence did not disclose the modus operandi adopted by the Petitioner, and further it was not understood as to how merely entering on a chit the alleged stakes could constitute gambling u/s 13 of the Public Gambling Act. The amendments effected by Punjab Act 9 of 1960 have, however, radically altered the position, and it cannot be said that when the Petitioner in each of these cases accepted the stakes, he was neither indulging in gambling nor had gone beyond the stage of preparation. The modus operandi has been explained in the prosecution evidence in each of these cases.

Mr. J. K. Khosla, in the end, argued that there was nothing to show that each of the Petitioners was accepting bets on his own behalf, and that he was acting merely as a commission agent for some outside agency. This is an entirely hypothetical argument which was not set up in the defence of either of the Petitioners who, as stated above, denied the prosecution case in its entirety.

Accordingly, the recommendation in each of the revision petitions is declined.