In Re: Kunjithapatham

K.N. Mudaliyar, J.—On the testimony of P. W. 1, the accused is entitled to an acquittal.

All that P. W. 1 speaks about the incident is that one Shanmugham owned M. Os. 1 to 3 and that on 14th January, 1969 at 9.30 p.m. he saw

M. O. 1 containing pictures of six animal M.O. 2 was the circling indicator -in the chakri. The indicator was turned and where it stopped was the

winning animal. According to P. W. 1 M.O. 2 would win the game for the man who would wager or not.

It is true that this is a game of chance. P.W. 1 watched the game for a minute. He surrounded the gamblers and arrested the six gamblers

including the accused. He prepared a mahazir, E P. 1, for the seizure of M. Os 1. to 3 and the amount of Rs. 3-64. He admits in cross-

examination that he did not see which of the accused placed his money on which of the animals.

The prosecution has got to prove that this accused-Petitioner was found ''gaming'' within the meaning of that term in Section 3 of the Madras

Gaming Act. At any rate, this evidence is consistent with the hypothesis of the innocence of the accused, as an on-looker. In the absence of any

overt act to prove the accused as ''found gaming'', I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused-Petitioner.

The Petitioner is acquitted. The fine is ordered to be refunded.