1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.369 of 1999 Date of decision: 14/9/2009 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.U.CHANDIWAL 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes/No. may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes/No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see Yes/No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? Yes/No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Yes/No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important Yes/No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? (A.G. PARALIKAR) Private Secretary agp/office/369-99crra 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.369 OF 1999 1. Balu Shankar Dhole, Age: 40 years, Occ:Agri., r/o. Bheta, Tq. Ausa, Dist.Latur. 2. Datta Chimaji Lohar, Age: 38 years Occ: Agri. r/o. Bheta Tq. Ausa Dist. Latur. 3. Hamid Mehboob Shaikh, Age 32 years, Occ: Agri., r/o Bheta Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. 4. Dattatray Manik Jadhav, Age 46 years Occ: Agri. r/o Bheta Tq. Ausa, Dist.Latur. 5. Pundalik s/o Sopan Hajare, Age: 32 years Occ: Agri. r/o Bheta Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr. Girish Awale, Adv., for the petitioners. Mrs. B.R.Khekale, APP, for respondent State. ... CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 14/9/2009 *** 3 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard learned Counsel. 2. The accused came to be convicted for an offense punishable under 12/A of Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 and is sentenced by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ausa, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month in Criminal Case STCC No.121/1995. 3. This was challenged by the accused in Criminal Appeal No.29/1996, before the learned Sessions Judge at Latur and by order dt. 27.9.1999, the Criminal Appeal of the accused was dismissed and hence the revision. 4. On 26th Feb.,1995, Police Officer Mundhe, attached to Bhada Police Station, had night duty and, based on secret information that infront of hotel of Pundlik Sopan Hazare, at village Bheta, some persons were indulging in gambling called as Zanna Manna by using playing cards, he asked two persons to work as Panch, collected Police staff and arranged the raid. The suspects indeed were found indulging in gambling activities and playing cards. They were nabbed. The five accused were sitting in a circle and Rs.60/- along with 37 playing cards 4 were found kept near each other. The details of the seizure were recorded by showing recovery of Rs.1015/- from the accused under panchnama and they are prosecuted. 5. One of the submission before the learned Sessions Judge was whether the accused/applicants were prejudiced due to wrong use of Section 12/A instead of Section 12(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, while explaining particulars of the offense to the accused. Before the learned Sessions Judge or the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, the accused could not explain that how and in what circumstances they faced prejudice because of wrong quoting of the Section used by the learned Magistrate. The particulars of the offense, which were explained below Exh.21 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, reads as under: " That on 26.2.1995 at about 200 hrs. you were found in font of hotel of Kundlik Sopan Hazari on public road playing cards i.e. Janna-Manna Matka and accepting money on Matka and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 12/A of Bombay Prev. of Gambling Act and within my cognizance. " 6. The user of Section 12/A by itself will not mean that the learned Judge missed user of Section 12/a of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. Section 12/a manifestly makes it clear 5 that if any person found gaming or reasonably suspected to be of gaming at public street or thoroughfare or in any place to which the public have or permitted to have access or any race- course is liable to conviction. There was no occasion for re-trial of the matter in terms of the infirmity pointed out before the learned Sessions Judge. 7. Learned Sessions Judge has considered the merits of the matter, particularly the four witnesses in support of prosecution case. I do not see any illegality in the order under challenge. The conviction is confirmed. Criminal Revision Application No.369/1999 is dismissed. Rule discharged. Accused to surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, within 15 days. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/369-99crra