Gujarat High Court
Hasmukhbhai Mansukhbhai Teraiya vs State Of Gujarat on 12 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/507/2008 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 507
of 2008
==========================================================
HASMUKHBHAI MANSUKHBHAI TERAIYA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR.ROHAN N.SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 12/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Issue rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. By the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
2. The present revision application is preferred by the original accused persons against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2008, confirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Savarkundla, in Criminal Case Nos.5 and 6 of 2001, whereby the accused persons came to be convicted under Sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 and were sentenced to undergo 1 month S.I and further ordered to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default thereof, 6 days S.I and both the sentences were ordered to Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 23:52:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/507/2008 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined run concurrent finding of the facts that the petitioner before this Court by way of present revision application.
3. Facts in nutshell are that:-
(i) Out of the accused, accused No.1, on 11.04.2021 at about 23.45 hours, at Friend Society, Block No.5, Savarkundla and along with other co-accused persons, had gathered for the purpose of making profit from gaming (3 patti). During the raid a total amount of Rs.4,760/- and gaming cards were recovered. Pursuant to which, a complaint came to be lodged before Savarkundla Town Police Station bearing C.R. No.II-32 of 2001 on 11.04.2001.
After completion of investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed before the concerned jurisdictional court for offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 ("Gambling Act.")
(ii) After recording the plea by the trial Court and having denied the charges prayed for trial. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and relied on 3 documentary evidences, namely:
(a) Panchnama of the place of offence at Exh-40,
(b) Warrant at Exh-41, and
(c) Complaint at Exh-102.Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 23:52:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/507/2008 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined
4. Learned Advocate Mr.Pravin Gondaliya would submits that:-
(i) As per Exh-124, information received under the Right to Information Act, reveals that no search warrant was issued from the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police as alleged by the prosecution on 09.04.2001, which was valid upto 15.04.2001.
(ii) Even, as per the deposition of the complainant, Mr.Vandarwala, it appears that the register of warrants does not mention the duration or validity of the warrant, and the date of the raid is reflected as 10.04.2001.
(iii) On perusal of panchnama at Exh.40, the date of warrant is kept blank, which creates a serious doubt.
Coupled with the facts that, the application under the Right to Information Act was answered in the negative as for as issuance of warrant is concerned.
(iv) No independent witnesses were examined despite their availability at the alleged place of offence.
(v) Considering the entire deposition of the raiding officer, Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 23:52:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/507/2008 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined namely, Mr.Vandarwala, the alleged act does not fall within the four corners of Sections 4 or 5 of the Gambling Act, since, neither the ownership of the premises nor any independent witness to prove that the original accused No.1 had rented the said premises for the purpose of gaming has been proved and thus, prosecution has failed to prove that the alleged place of offence was a common gaming house and the conviction under Sections 4 or 5 is not tenable.
(vi) It is further argued that merely because the police officers have supported the case of the prosecution, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. More particularly, relying upon the witnesses of the defence is no ground to convict the accused persons, since the case of the prosecution is to stand on its own legs and the witnesses is not sufficient to convict. Thus, it is argued to allow the present revision application
5. Per contra, Learned APP Mr.Utkarsh Sharma would submit that it is against the concurrent findings of the facts that the present revision application is preferred by the original accused and very limited scope under the provision of Section 397 of the Cr.P.C read with Section
401. The evidence on record without pointing out palpable error on the face of the record. It is further argued that, Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 23:52:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/507/2008 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined merely because independent witnesses were not examined, it cannot be said that prosecution has not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. More particularly, all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and trial Court as well as First Appellate Court have given cogent and convincing reasons after proper appreciation of evidence both oral as well as documentary evidence. Hence, the revision application deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved then it must find place in the class of cases resulting into perverse finding. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harshendra Kumar Vs. Rebatilata Koley reported in 2011 Criminal Law Journal 1626 (SC), prosecution is a serious matter and its effects the liberty of person and no greater damage can be done to the reputation of the person dragging in a criminal case. It is further held that any public document or material relied upon by the accused which is beyond suspicion can be taken into by the High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction.
7. Having considered the limited scope of interference under the provisions of Section 397 read with Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 23:52:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/507/2008 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. The basic infirmity which prima facie appears from the record of the case is that at Exh.41 warrant alleged to have been issued by the SP's office on 09.04.2001 and its validity was till 15.04.2001 is taken into consideration. The date on which it was issued is not reflecting in the said warrant . Coupled with the facts that the reply by the public information officer placed on record vide Exh.124 clearly states that no warrant under the Provisions of Section 6 of the Gambling Act, was issued on 09.04.2001 by the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. This aspect has been clearly given go by, by both the Courts. Merely relying deposition of the investigation officer and other police officers of the raiding party would not suffice. However, it is required to be note that the defence has to create a serious doubt in the case of prosecution and having brought on record that no such warrant was issued under Section 6 of the Gambling Act on 09.04.2001 coupled with the fact, that the date of issuance of warrant is also not stated, also coupled with the fact that the ownership of the residence is not proved nor any evidence with regards to accused No.1 having possession of the said house is coming on record. Under the circumstances, both the courts have committed grave error in convicting the accused persons.
8. As far as the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of Gambling Act are concerned, the same are attracted when Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 23:52:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/507/2008 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined common gaming house is kept and gaming is found in the said common gaming house. From the deposition recorded by the trial Court of Mr.Vandarwala at Exh-101 at Para 15, Page 14 of the impugned judgment except for the fact that 6 persons were present and were playing (3 patti) and on personal search of amount Rs.4,760 was found is not enough to attract the Sections 4 and 5 of the Gambling Act. It is settled principle of law that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Coupled with the fact that, the panchas of the raiding party has not supported the case of the prosecution, neither the investigation officer nor the raiding police officer Mr.Vandarwala has deposed the content of the panchnama during the deposition before the trial Court. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
9. For the reasons stated herein. The present revision application is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Savarkundla, vide judgment and order dated 02.05.2008, in Criminal Case Nos.5 and 6 of 2001, as confirmed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2008, vide judgment and order dated 21.07.2008, are hereby quashed and set aside. The applicants are acquitted of all the charges. The bail bonds Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 23:52:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/507/2008 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined stand cancelled. Sureties stands discharged. Fine, if paid, is to be refunded after due verification. R & P to be sent back forthwith.
(P. M. RAVAL, J) MOHD SAIF ULLAH Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 23:52:36 IST 2025