IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2001. Decided on : 7.7.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh …Appellant. Versus Surat Singh & Others. ..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the Appellant : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) The respondents were prosecuted in case No.39/3 of 97/95 under Section 3 / 4 of Public Gambling Act, 1867 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (III), Shimla and were acquitted by him on 19.8.2000 The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that on 9.9.1995, A.S.I. Pramod Shukla (PW-3) received a secret information that Manager of Cedar Hotel is using the hotel as common gaming house. The raiding party was constituted and one Sh. Subhash Chand (PW-2) was associated in the raiding party. When they reached in front of the reception Hall, six persons i.e. accused ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2 sitting on the floor and were playing cards. The matter was investigated and the complaint was filed under Section 3 and 4 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867. The prosecution had examined three P.Ws to prove its case. The respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court acquitted the respondents on 19.8.2000. The learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case and the judgment dated 19.8.2000 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate has supported the judgment dated 19.8.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. PW-1 is Dev Raj. He has deposed that ASI Parmod Shukla (PW-3) had received a secret information that Manager of Cedar Hotel was using the Hotel as common gaming house. They reached at the Hotel and found that six persons were sitting on the floor and were playing cards. 52 cards were taken into possession along with currency notes which were sealed with seal ‘H’. Fard Ex.PW-1/A was prepared on which he appended his signatures. He identified the playing cards Ex.P-1 and notes Ex.P-2. However, in his cross-examination, he had stated that during his entire tenure, he has never heard that Cedar Hotel was ever used for the purpose of gambling etc. PW-2 is Subhash Chand. He is the only independent witness. However, he has not supported the case of the complainant and has been declared hostile. 3 PW-3 is complainant A.S.I. Pramod Shukla. He has reiterated the version given by PW-1. The prosecution has not associated any independent witness from the locality. The sole independent eye witness PW-2 has resiled. It is admitted by both the police officials i.e. PW-1 and PW-3 that they never heard that the Hotel Cedar was being used as common gaming house. The prosecution has failed to prove that the Hotel Cedar was used for profit or gain by any person owning /occupying or using it. This Court will not interfere in the well reasoned judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (III), Shimla on 19.8.2000. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail/surety bonds are discharged. ( Rajiv Sharma ), Judge. July 7, 2008. (GR)