CR.A/9/4098 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 940 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial 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 civil judge ? ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s) Versus PRABHASHANKAR BHIKHALAL & 5 - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS MITA PANCHAL, APP for Appellant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 1 - 2,4 - 6. MR RAJESH R. DEWAL for MR BHARGAV N BHATT for Opponent(s) : 1 - 6. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 22/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant - State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the Judgment and Order dated 13.8.1998, rendered in Summary Case No. 2340 of 1998, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, CR.A/9/4098 2/5 JUDGMENT Bhavnagar, whereby he acquitted all the accused from the offences charged against them. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that against the respondents – accused raid was carried out by the Investigating Agency and found that the respondents – accused were playing the gambling and, therefore, they were caught red-handed at the place of offence. After drawing the panchnama and recording the statement of panchas a complaint was registered against the present respondents under the provision of Section 4 & 5 of the Gambling Act. The said case was registered as Summary Case No.2340 of 1998. 3. It is the case of the appellant that P.S.I. ( C ) Division of Bhavnagar Police Station, received information regarding the gambling. Thereupon two independent persons were called by the P.S.I. and after obtaining consent for raid preliminary panchnama was drawn and raid was carried out in presence of panchas and found that the present respondents were playing the game of gambling of cards, viz. “Teen Patti”. Search was crried out in presence of panchas and the Muddamal articles were seized from the possession of the respondents. Thereafter the respondents were arrested and charge- sheeted before the trial Court. Plea was recorded against the accused – present respondents. During the trial the main star witnesses – panchas of panchnama were turned hostile and, therefore, after considering the documentary as well as oral evidence the trial Court CR.A/9/4098 3/5 JUDGMENT acquitted all the accused from the offences charged against them. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said Judgment and order dated 13/8/1998 rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar, in Summary Case No. 2340 of 1998, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this Appeal. 5. Heard learned APP Ms. Mita Panchal for the State and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Rajesh Dewal for Mr. Bhargav Bhatt, on behalf of the respondents – original accused. 6. It is contended by learned APP that the Judgment and order of the trial Court is against the provision of law; the trial Court has not properly considered the fact that the raiding party has followed the provision of the Gambling Act and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned APP has also read the oral as well as the documentary evidence. 7. On behalf of the respondents – accused learned Advocate Mr. Rajesh Dewal has contended that the matter is very old. He has also contended that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is also contended that the main star witnesses of the case, viz. Panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and the respondents been wrongly involved in the commission of offence and there is nothing on CR.A/9/4098 4/5 JUDGMENT record to show that the appellant has prima facie case. Lastly, he contended that the learned Magistrate has assigned cogent reason and after fully appreciating the evidence the learned Magistrate has rightly acquitted the accused from the offences charged against them. 8. I have gone through the Judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the trial Court and also considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respective parties. From the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its prima facie case beyond reasonable doubt. When the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused then the accused are entitled to get the benefit of doubt and there is no reason to interfere with the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate. 9. It is settled legal position that in acquittal Appeal the appellate Court is not required to re-write the Judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the reasons assigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA v/s. HEMAREDDY, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417, has observed that when the Appellate Court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower Court then the re-discussion of evidence is not necessary. In the instant case, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the respondents – accused and adopting the said reasons and for the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the CR.A/9/4098 5/5 JUDGMENT impugned Judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court at this stage. 10.In view of above discussion, I see no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the trial Court. Hence, this Appeal requires to be dismissed. 11.In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 13.8.1998 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar, in Summary Case No. 2340 of 1998 acquitting the respondents – accused, is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, shall stands cancelled. (Z.K.SAIYED, J.) sas