Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sagram Singh vs State Of M.P. on 15 September, 2021
Author: Anand Pathak
1 Cr.R.No.622/2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
:SINGLE BENCH:
{JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK, J.}
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.622/2012
Sangram Singh & Ors.
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Amit Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ramadhar Chaubey, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
th
(Passed on 15 day of September, 2021)
1. The present revision petition under Section 397 and 401 of
Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioners against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 17-08-2012 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda District Vidisha in
Criminal Appeal No.19/2010 confirming the judgment of
conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Ganjbasoda District Vidisha in Criminal Case No.143/2005
whereby petitioners have been convicted of the charge under
Section 4A of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 and sentenced to
3 months' SI each with fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default
stipulation.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that on a tip received by
Station House Officer of Police Station Ganjbasoda in relation
to gambling ( lV~Vk) activities, he formed a team and raided the
premises of accused petitioner No.1 -Sangram Singh after
obtaining search warrant from the concerned SDO(P). On raid,
police found petitioner No.1/accused writing some number in
his diary and at the house of Sangram Singh other accused
persons were also found noting down the numbers. In the said
raid, Police seized the slips over which numbers of gambling
(lV~Vk) were written and Rs.1,34,000/- were seized from the
spot. Accused/petitioners were arrested and FIR Ex-P/8 at crime
No.181/2002 has been registered against the petitioners. Matter
was investigated and challan was filed in the matter under
Section 4A of the Public Gambling Act before the concerned
Magistrate.
3. Before the trial Court -Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Ganjbasoda District Vidisha, petitioners abjured their guilt and
prayed for trial. Defence witnesses have also been examined by
the petitioners in order to establish the fact that petitioners were
not involved in promoting gambling activities and the amount
which was seized from the spot were not of them. After
recording of evidence ocular as well as documentary and
hearing the submission of counsel for the parties, the trial Court
convicted and sentenced the petitioners as referred above.
4. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
trial Court has been challenged by the petitioners by preferring
criminal appeal. The appellate Court dismissed the said appeal
and maintained the conviction of petitioners as recorded by the
trial Court, therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
Courts below erred in convicting the petitioners for the offence
referred above. Independent seizure witnesses namely, Pushpraj
Singh (PW-1), Nitin Mehta (PW-2), Harprasad (PW-3) and
Chhotelal (PW-4) did not support the prosecution story and
declared hostile. It is further submitted that defence witnesses
Bhero Singh (DW-1) and Rambabu Yadav (DW-2) deposed in
favour of petitioners and averred that on 11-05-2001 cash
amount which has been seized by the Police, was withdrawn
through cheque which is on record. Thus, the cash amount
recovered from the spot was not part of gambling. There are
several contradictions and omissions in the statements of
witnesses of Police Officers but the Courts below ignored the
same and convicted the petitioners. It is further submitted that
petitioners are law abiding citizen. During trial petitioners were
on bail and after the judgment of appellate Court, they were
sent to jail and the petitioners suffered 7-7 days incarceration.
Thereafter since petitioner No.3-Leeladhar did not appear
before the trial Court, therefore, he was sent to jail on 25-04-
2016 by this Court and he suffered full jail sentence awarded by
the Courts below. Petitioners have suffered ordeal of trial for
last 16 years and they learnt the lesson hard way.
6. It is further submitted that looking to the nature of offence,
conviction and jail sentence, according to provisions of Section
357 of Cr.P.C. compensation/fine at higher side be directed to be
paid, which petitioners are ready to pay. Alternatively, it is
submitted that the jail sentence of petitioners be reduced to the
sentence already undergone by them and fine amount may be
enhanced as this Court deems fit.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed
the prayer and prayed for dismissal of petition. However, they
fairly accepted that if petitioners are ready to pay enhanced fine
then only their case for undergone may be considered.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. In the case in hand, petitioners are facing the allegations of
public gambling. Perusal of record indicates that the witnesses
of seizure did not support the prosecution story and declared
hostile and further the cash which was seized by police from the
spot, was stated to be withdrawn by the petitioners from the
bank through cheque which was placed on record. But the fact
remains that Police witnesses categorically supported the
prosecution case and since petitioners had not pleaded any
enmity with those police witnesses, therefore, statements of
them are believable and according to Section 134 of Indian
Evidence Act, on the basis of statement of sole witness only,
conviction can be recorded. Quality of evidence is paramount
consideration not the quantity of evidence. Prosecution
succeeded to prove that petitioners were involved in playing
gambling and promoting the gambling activities to the poor and
innocent people.
10. The material seized in the raid of Police viz. diary and cash
support the case of prosecution and huge amount has been
recovered from the house of petitioners. Petitioners were
involved in promoting gambling and providing platform to the
innocent and poor people to play gambling through lV~Vk.
Therefore, Courts below did not commit any error in convicting
the petitioners.
11. At this juncture learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that after passing the judgment of conviction in appeal,
petitioners suffered 7-7 days jail sentences except petitioner
No.3 -Leeladhar as he suffered full jail sentence of 3 months SI
and further petitioners have suffered 16 years' long ordeal of
trial, therefore, case of petitioners No.1&2 (Sangram Singh and
Durgesh) may be considered for lighter mode of punishment and
they may be sentenced to the period which is already undergone
by them, for which they are ready to pay fine at higher side.
12. It is a case where petitioners have faced heat of incarceration for
7-7 days on the ground of conviction under Section 4A of the
Public Gambling Act. Petitioners have suffered ordeal of trial
for last 16 years and they were continuously participating in the
process of law. Therefore, this Court considered it to apposite to
sentence petitioners No.1&2 (Sangram Singh and Durgesh) to
the period which they have already undergone with
enhancement of fine amount.
13. From the cumulative consideration of the case, in the considered
opinion of this Court, conviction deserves to be modified to the
extent that the sentence which petitioners No.1&2 (Sangram
Singh and Durgesh)/revisionsists have undergone, would be
sufficient for serving jail sentence but in view of Section 357 of
Cr.P.C., fine of Rs.1,000/- which has been imposed by the trial
Court deserves to be enhanced to Rs.2,000/- (additional) each
and same be deposited within three months from today. If
petitioners/revisionists do not deposit the amount as directed by
this Court, within the stipulated time then petitioners No.1&2
(Sangram Singh and Durgesh) shall have to serve the remaining
jail sentence, for which trial Court sentenced them.
14. Resultantly, the revision petition preferred by the petitioners
stands disposed of while maintaining the conviction recorded by
the Courts below and the sentence is reduced to the sentence
already undergone by petitioners No.1&2 (Sangram Singh and
Durgesh) with further direction to petitioners No.1&2 (Sangram
Singh and Durgesh) to pay additional compensation of
Rs.2,000/- each. Petitioners are on bail, their bail bonds stand
discharged and they are set at liberty.
15. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information
and necessary compliance.
16. Revision petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid
directions.
(Anand Pathak)
Anil* Judge
ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, postalCode=474001,
CHAURASIY st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=8512f40a1a9eaa50b6802d068
b51dae27e84c266b09d283f0799e67cdc
A
7df50f, cn=ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA
Date: 2021.09.15 07:58:03 -07'00'
