In Re: C. Raghava Variar and Another

Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.—As accused 1 was acquitted by the Appellate Ct. of the offence u/s 8, Madras Gaming Act, though it was admittedly his own house & he permitted the gaming therein, obviously on the ground that it was not proved to be a common gaming house, "it follows that all the accused should also have been acquitted of the offence u/s 9, which will apply only to gaming in a common gaming house". There has been also no appeal against the acquittal of accused 1 regarding Section 8 by the State. So, the reference by the Ses. J., North Malabar, is right. When the trunk is cut & falls, the branches will fall by themselves. Though accused 3 & 4 did not appeal, & are not represented before me by any counsel (possibly due to poverty, ignorance of law, despair, etc.) I see no reason why I should reject the reference as regards them alone when there is no difference between their case & the case of accused 1 & 2, in law & in fact, & when Order 41, Rule 33 , Civil P. C., allows a Ct. to interfere in the interests of justice for the benefit of even "ex parte" defts. who have not appealed, & the powers of a criminal Ct. of justice, in revn., are, in this respect, even wider. I accept the reference of the Ses. J., North Malabar, in full & set aside the convictions & sentences of Accused 1 to Accused 4 u/s 9 , acquit them of that offence, & order the fines, if paid, to be refunded.