Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Petition No. 588 of 1986, decided on 18th February, 1987.
‑‑‑S. 5‑A‑‑Gambling, offence of‑‑Before an offence under S. 5‑A, Gambling Ordinance could be said to be established, it was held necessary for witnesses to state what was nature or type of gambling for which accused were being charged and how they stood involved therein.
‑‑‑S. 5‑A‑‑Gambling (Satta)‑‑Witnesses not explaining what sort of gambling (Satta) was going on, or what was nature of that wagering arrangement‑‑Investigating Officer admitting in cross‑examination that neither any name of any accused nor any signatures of any person appeared on chits recovered and that what was written on chits could not be deciphered‑‑No evidence either available to show that money was seen passing from hands of one of accused to another or any one of them was receiving money as a stake holder‑‑Held, it could not be concluded from record that accused were gambling or chits which were recovered were related to said engagement‑‑Accused given benefit of doubt and their conviction and sentence set aside.
Rana Abdul Majeed for Petitioners.
Ch. Muhammad Idrees for the State.
Date of hearing: 18th February, 1987.
This is a petition under section 439, Cr.P.C. filed by Muhammad Sajid and others, petitioners Nos. I to 5, against the judgment of a learned Additional Sessions Judge of Kasur, dated 28‑10‑1986, partly accepting their appeal and reducing their sentences under section 5‑A of the Gambling Act from one year's rigorous imprisonment each to the sentences already undergone with a fine of Rs.1,000 each or in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
2. Briefly, the prosecution story is that on 31‑12‑1983 at about 6 a.m. Safdar Ali A.S.I., P.W.2, alongwith other Police officials, was on patrol duty and was present in Chhatta Bazar, Kasur. He received information that in front of the house of Maulvi Muhammad Sadiq, gambling (Satta) was going on. Raid was conducted and Muhammad Sajid, Muhammad Iqbal, Abdul Hameed, Muhammad Latif and Hidayat, accused, were found indulging in gambling. On personal search of Sajid, petitioner, four chits of Satta and Rs. 235 were recovered. On personal search of Iqbal, Abdul Hameed, Muhammad Latif and Hidayat petitioners, one chit of Satta each were also recovered. These chits and amount were taken into possession by the police and the accused were arrested on the spot. After necessary investigation, they were challaned.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State and have also perused the record. Before an offence under section 5‑A of the Gambling Ordinance can be said to be established, it is necessary for the witnesses to state what is the nature or type of the gambling for which the accused are being charged and how they stand involved therein. In the instant case it has not been explained by any witness what gambling (Satta) was going on, or what was the nature of that wagering arrangement. No witness has explained the nature of the entries found in the Chits P.1/1‑4 and P.2/1‑4 recovered from the petitioners or the nature of the gambling going on or who had bet what and with whom and what was the profit expected and in what way. Safdar Ali A.S.I. P.W. 2 admitted in cross‑examination that no name of any of the petitioners nor any signature of any person appeared on the chits and what was written on the chits he could not decipher. There is no evidence that money was seen passing from the hands of one petitioner to the other, or any one of them was receiving money as a stake holder. In these circumstances, it cannot conclusively be stated that the petitioners were gambling or that the chits that were recovered from them related to the said pre‑occupation. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted and the conviction and fines of the petitioners are set aside.
S.G.D./M‑77/L Petition accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer