STATE OF GUJARAT versus JAGANBHAI BHAGWANBHAI

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 613 · Decided: 16-02-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
, 
H 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
v. 
JAGANBHAIBHAGWANBHAI 
February 16, 1966. 
[K. SUBBA RAO AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 (Born. 4 of 1887), ss. 3 
& 7-N ecessity of expert to prove articles seized whether ''instruments of 
ganiing"-Evidence of officer to whom warrant issued-Corroboration ii 
necessary. 
The respondent was charged under ss. 4 and 5 of the Bombay Preven-
tion of Gambling Act, on the allegation that ha was found accepting 
bets on American futures, and on being searched currency notes and two 
slips, on which American Futures were recorded, were found. The trial 
Magistrate acquitted the respondent, which was confirmed, on appeal, by 
the High Court. In appeal to this Court the appellant-State contended that 
it was not necessary to examine an expert to corroborate the evidence 
of the prosecuting sub-Inspector that the articles seized were "instruments 
of gaming" and that the ll\idence of the Police Inspector to whom the 
warrant was issued under s. 6 of the Act did not require corroboration 
in each and every case. 
HELD : The contentions are well founded and must be accepted as 
correct. 
There is nothing in the Act to suggest that in order to prove that the 
articles seized are "instruments of gaming" it is the duty of the prosecution 
to examine an expert in every case. 
It is open to the prosecution to 
prove that the articles seized are instruments of gaming by proper evi~ 
dence and it is not necessary to examine an expert for the purpose in each 
and every case. 
It is also not proper to make a distinction be.tween the evidence of 
-an officer who makes a complaint under the proviso to s. 6 of the Act and to 
whom a wanrant 
issued for search and the evidence of a person to 
whom a warrant is issued but who makes no such complaint under the 
proviso. 
The question as to whether the .,,-idence of the person who 
executes the warrant requires corroboration depends on the facts and 
circumstances of each case and no legal distinction can be made merely 
because the per~n who executes the warrant happens to be the person 
who make• the complaint under the proviso to s. 6 of the Act to the Com-
missioner of Police or to the Magistrate. [616 A-CJ 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal 
No. 167 of 1964. 
Appeal from the judgment and order November 4, 1963 of 
the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 734 of 1962. 
G. S. Patwardhan, R. N. Sachthey and B.R.G.K. Achar, for the 
appellant. 
The respondent did not appear. 
~14 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1966] 3 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ramaswami, J. ll1is appeal is brought by the State of Gujarat 
against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmeda-
.bad dated November 4, 1963 in Criminal Appeal No. 734 of 1962. 
A 
The respondent was charged in the Court of the Judicial Magis-
trate First Class, Bulsar under ss. 4 and 5 of the Bombay Preven-
B 
lion of Gambling Act, 1887 (Bombay Act IV of 1887), hereinafter 
called the 'Act'. The case of the prosecution was that on January 
31, 1962 at about 9 p.m. the respondent was found accepting bets 
on American futures. 
On being searched in the presence of 
panchas currency notes of Rs. 119/- and two slips on which Ameri-
can futures were recorded were found. 
The trying Magistrate, 
C 
however, held that slips \Vere not "instruments of gaming" within 
the meaning of s. 7 of the Act. The Magistrate was also not 
satisfied that the police officer who carried out the search and 
seized the articles had reasonable grounds to believe that the slips 
and other articles recovered from the respondent were instru-
ments of gaming. The Magistrate held that the presumption 
under s. 7 of the Act could not be raised. The respondent was, 
D 
therefore, acquitted <>f the charge. Against the onkr of acquittal 
the State of Gujarat preferred an appeal to the High Court of 
Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 734 of 1962. The 
appeal was dismissed hy Raju, J. on November 4, 1963. 
In support of this appeal '-'Ir. Patwardhan submitted that the 
High Court was in error in holding that it is necessary to examine 
an expert to corroborate the 
evidence of the prosecuting Sub-
Inspector that the articles seized were "instruments of gaming". 
It was also contended by Counsel that the High Court was not 
right in taking the view that the evidence of the Police Inspector 
to whom the warrant was issued under s. 6 of the Act require

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.