Sangram Singh & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Anand Pathak, J

The present revision petition under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioners against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17-08-2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda District Vidisha in Criminal Appeal No.19/2010 confirming the judgment of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ganjbasoda District Vidisha in Criminal Case No.143/2005 whereby petitioners have been convicted of the charge under Section 4A of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 and sentenced to 3 months' SI each with fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulation.

Precisely stated facts of the case are that on a tip received by Station House Officer of Police Station Ganjbasoda in relation to gambling ( lV~Vk) activities, he formed a team and raided the premises of accused petitioner No.1 -Sangram Singh after obtaining search warrant from the concerned SDO(P). On raid, police found petitioner No.1/accused writing some number in his diary and at the house of Sangram Singh other accused persons were also found noting down the numbers. In the said raid, Police seized the slips over which numbers of gambling (lV~Vk) were written and Rs.1,34,000/- were seized from the spot. Accused/petitioners were arrested and FIR Ex-P/8 at crime No.181/2002 has been registered against the petitioners. Matter was investigated and challan was filed in the matter under Section 4A of the Public Gambling Act before the concerned Magistrate.

Before the trial Court -Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ganjbasoda District Vidisha, petitioners abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. Defence witnesses have also been examined by the petitioners in order to establish the fact that petitioners were not involved in promoting gambling activities and the amount which was seized from the spot were not of them. After recording of evidence ocular as well as documentary and hearing the submission of counsel for the parties, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners as referred above.

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court has been challenged by the petitioners by preferring criminal appeal. The appellate Court dismissed the said appeal and maintained the conviction of petitioners as recorded by the trial Court, therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Courts below erred in convicting the petitioners for the offence referred above. Independent seizure witnesses namely, Pushpraj Singh (PW-1), Nitin Mehta (PW-2), Harprasad (PW-3) and Chhotelal (PW-4) did not support the prosecution story and declared hostile. It is further submitted that defence witnesses Bhero Singh (DW-1) and Rambabu Yadav (DW-2) deposed in favour of petitioners and averred that on 11-05-2001 cash amount which has been seized by the Police, was withdrawn through cheque which is on record. Thus, the cash amount recovered from the spot was not part of gambling. There are several contradictions and omissions in the statements of witnesses of Police Officers but the Courts below ignored the same and convicted the petitioners. It is further submitted that petitioners are law abiding citizen. During trial petitioners were on bail and after the judgment of appellate Court, they were sent to jail and the petitioners suffered 7-7 days incarceration. Thereafter since petitioner No.3-Leeladhar did not appear before the trial Court, therefore, he was sent to jail on 25-04-2016 by this Court and he suffered full jail sentence awarded by the Courts below. Petitioners have suffered ordeal of trial for last 16 years and they learnt the lesson hard way.

It is further submitted that looking to the nature of offence, conviction and jail sentence, according to provisions of Section 357 of Cr.P.C. compensation/fine at higher side be directed to be paid, which petitioners are ready to pay. Alternatively, it is submitted that the jail sentence of petitioners be reduced to the sentence already undergone by them and fine amount may be enhanced as this Court deems fit.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of petition. However, they fairly accepted that if petitioners are ready to pay enhanced fine then only their case for undergone may be considered.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In the case in hand, petitioners are facing the allegations of public gambling. Perusal of record indicates that the witnesses of seizure did not support the prosecution story and declared hostile and further the cash which was seized by police from the spot, was stated to be withdrawn by the petitioners from the bank through cheque which was placed on record. But the fact remains that Police witnesses categorically supported the prosecution case and since petitioners had not pleaded any enmity with those police witnesses, therefore, statements of them are believable and according to Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act, on the basis of statement of sole witness only, conviction can be recorded. Quality of evidence is paramount consideration not the quantity of evidence. Prosecution succeeded to prove that petitioners were involved in playing gambling and promoting the gambling activities to the poor and innocent people.

The material seized in the raid of Police viz. diary and cash support the case of prosecution and huge amount has been recovered from the house of petitioners. Petitioners were involved in promoting gambling and providing platform to the innocent and poor people to play gambling through lV~Vk. Therefore, Courts below did not commit any error in convicting the petitioners.

At this juncture learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after passing the judgment of conviction in appeal, petitioners suffered 7-7 days jail sentences except petitioner No.3 -Leeladhar as he suffered full jail sentence of 3 months SI and further petitioners have suffered 16 years' long ordeal of trial, therefore, case of petitioners No.1&2 (Sangram Singh and Durgesh) may be considered for lighter mode of punishment and they may be sentenced to the period which is already undergone by them, for which they are ready to pay fine at higher side.

It is a case where petitioners have faced heat of incarceration for 7-7 days on the ground of conviction under Section 4A of the Public Gambling Act. Petitioners have suffered ordeal of trial for last 16 years and they were continuously participating in the process of law. Therefore, this Court considered it to apposite to sentence petitioners No.1&2 (Sangram Singh and Durgesh) to the period which they have already undergone with enhancement of fine amount.

From the cumulative consideration of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, conviction deserves to be modified to the extent that the sentence which petitioners No.1&2 (Sangram Singh and Durgesh)/revisionsists have undergone, would be sufficient for serving jail sentence but in view of Section 357 of Cr.P.C., fine of Rs.1,000/- which has been imposed by the trial Court deserves to be enhanced to Rs.2,000/- (additional) each and same be deposited within three months from today. If petitioners/revisionists do not deposit the amount as directed by this Court, within the stipulated time then petitioners No.1&2 (Sangram Singh and Durgesh) shall have to serve the remaining jail sentence, for which trial Court sentenced them.

Resultantly, the revision petition preferred by the petitioners stands disposed of while maintaining the conviction recorded by the Courts below and the sentence is reduced to the sentence already undergone by petitioners No.1&2 (Sangram Singh and Durgesh) with further direction to petitioners No.1&2 (Sangram Singh and Durgesh) to pay additional compensation of Rs.2,000/- each. Petitioners are on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged and they are set at liberty.

Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary compliance.

Revision petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions.