-1- Criminal Revision No.435 of 2003. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.435 of 2003. Date of Decision: February 26, 2010. Avtar Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? QUORUM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioner Avtar Singh was convicted by the trial Magistrate under Section 13-A of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 (for short `the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- in default whereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for ten days. His appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner. -2- Criminal Revision No.435 of 2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear in Court when the matter was taken up for hearing in spite of the fact that his presence was requisitioned by the Reader of this Court by displaying his name in the notice board through the Computer installed in the Court repeatedly. I have heard the learned State counsel and have gone through the records of the case with his assistance. A police party headed by Head Constable Gurmit Singh, while on patrol duty, on receipt of an information that the petitioner was indulging in `Darra Satta' (gambling) by proclaiming that if one rupee was staked on a particular number and if the staked number came, the person would get Rs.70/-. Head Constable Gurmit Singh deputed Constable Harpal Singh to stake two rupees with the petitioner on a particular number. Accordingly, Constable Harpal Singh went to the petitioner and staked rupees two on number 77 and the petitioner gave a receipt in this regard to Constable Harpal Singh. Then, Constable gave the agreed signal to Head constable Gurmit Singh, who reached the spot. On search of the petitioner, chits of `Darra Satta', a ball pen, paper board and Rs.109/- were recovered. The same articles were taken into possession. The trial Magistrate, after recording evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as mentioned above. His appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. No doubt, the case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of two police officials, namely, Constable -3- Criminal Revision No.435 of 2003. Harpal Singh (P.W.1) and Head Constable Gurmit Singh (P.W.2), but merely because of their official status their statements cannot be discarded. They had no motive to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case. Both of them were subjected to a lengthy cross- examination, but nothing could be elicited therefrom which may shake the veracity of the prosecution case. As is evident from the Identity Card of the petitioner, which has been placed on record, he was `Lambardar' of the village at the relevant time. Had he been falsely involved in this case, he would have got passed a Resolution from the Gram Panchayat in this regard. However, it was not done nor the petitioner made any complaint to the higher police officials. The facts and circumstances of the case disclose that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment of conviction in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner under Section 13-A of the Act is maintained. So far as sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned, he has already undergone incarceration for more than one month. The incident relates to February, 2000.The Sword of Damocles has, thus, remained hanging over the head of petitioner Avtar Singh for more than ten years. Taking into account the fact that petitioner Avtar Singh has already undergone rigorous imprisonment for one month and nine days, I think no useful purpose will be served in sending him to prison again at this stage and ends of justice will be adequately met if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment awarded to him -4- Criminal Revision No.435 of 2003. under Section 13-A of the Act is reduced to the period already undergone by him. I order accordingly. However, the sentence of fine of Rs.200/- awarded to petitioner and the default clause shall remain unaltered. With the above modification in the sentence order, this revision petition is hereby dismissed. February 26, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE