1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.743 OF 2003 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant V/s. Prabhakar Laccha Shetty & anr. ..Respondents Ms.A.A.Mane, A.P.P, for the State None for the respondents CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 13TH AUGUST, 2008 P.C. . The State has come in appeal challenging the Order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane dated 13th September, 2002 in Criminal Revision Application No.93 of 2002 whereby the original accused were acquitted as the provisions of Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code bars the prosecution beyond statutory period. 2. The facts in nutshell are F.I.R was lodged against accused on 21st July,1997 for the offence punishable under Sections 4 & 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act and charge sheet came to 2 be filed on 3rd April, 1999. The accused moved an application before II Jt.J.M.F.C, Thane and by Order dated 9th May, 2002 the learned Judge hold that Sections 4 & 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act provides punishment which may extend to 2 years and fine can also be imposed. Consequently, taking re-course to the provisions of Sections 468(2)(b) read with Section 469(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code the learned J.M.F.C rejected application of the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, Criminal Revision Application No.93 of 2002 was preferred by the original accused before the learned Sessions Judge who by his Order, on analysing position of law reversed the findings of the J.M.F.C, Thane, dated 9th May, 2002 allowed the revision application. 3. I have asked the learned A.P.P whether provisions of Sections 4 & 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act referred in the Judgment of the Revisional Court can be disputed, as put in statue and she replies that statutory arrangement is universal and there is no amendment as such. 3 Section 4 deals with the advances or furnishing money for the purpose of gaming with persons frequenting any such house, room or place, shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months and may also be punished with fine provided that for a first offence such imprisonment shall not be less than one month and fine shall not be less than two hundred rupees, for a second offence such imprisonment shall not be less than three months and fine shall not be less than two hundred rupees and for a third or subsequent offence such imprisonment shall not be less than six months and fine shall not be less than two hundred rupees. 4. Section 5 of the Gambling Act contemplates whoever is found in any common gaming-house gaming or present for the purpose of gaming, shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months and may also be punished with fine provided that for a first offence such imprisonment shall not be less than one month and fine shall not be less than two hundred rupees, for 4 a second offence such imprisonment shall not be less than three months and fine shall not be less than two hundred rupess and for a third or subsequent offence such imprisonment shall not be less than six months and fine shall not be less than two hundred rupees. Thus, reading these provisions together I find that the learned Sessions Judge while allowing Revision Application was correct in analysing position of law and the findings of the learned J.M.F.C, Thane were giving incorrect exposition of the statute. Present application is meritless. Hence, leave to appeal is rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)