The applicants were convicted for offences under section 6 of West Pakistan Gambling Ordinance, 1961 by A. C. M. Court No. 31, Karachi and were sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 each or in: default one month's R. I., by his judgment dated 27-5-1971. Their revisions were dismissed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi on 5-6-1972, they have challenged both the judgments.
2. The prosecution case briefly is that on 26-3-1971 at about 8-30 P.M. A. S. I. Inayatullah Shah of Police Station, Kharadar received Spy information that one Adam was collecting the gambling money from the gamblers. He picked up police party along with two mashirs and one bogus customer Muhammad Siddique who has given one-rupee ante bearing No. AQ(80-X932746 for passing on the same to applicant Adam for the purpose of gambling and to obtain the Satta chit.
The money was passed on to the applicant and on a signal the party surprised the applicant Adam along with three other co-accused who were allegedly gambling and arrested them on the spot and a case under section 6 of the West Pakistan Gambling Ordinance, 1961 was set up and they were tried and sentenced as above.
3. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Mahboob, Advocate for the applicants and the State however remained unrepresented. His main contentions were that the applicants were not properly examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. Because the trial Court has not put them the most important question i.e. Regarding recovery of the alleged Satta chit, which resulted in miscarriage of justice and] that the alleged recovery of the chit from their possession did not prove that they were gambling and that the evidence of eye---witnesses at the most only show that they saw Satta gambling being indulged in by the applicant Adam by bogus customer but they did not depose the words exchanged between Adam and bogus customer to show that in fact Adam was indulged in gambling.
4. The prosecution has examined P. W. Inayatullah Shah, A. S. I. Who is a complainant and Investigating Officer who supported the F. I. R. And stated that he went on receiving infor--mation to Kharadar picked up the mashirs and bogus customer and gave him one-rupee note which was passed on to applicant Adam and he obtained Satta chit No. 67, 63 from him and on a signal all the four applicants were arrested who were present there, he also recovered 33 Satta chits of different numbers from applicant Adam and also some other chits from other applicants as well as Satta chit from customer Muhammad Siddique as per mashirnama Exh. I/C. P. W. 2 Karam Illahi, is a mashir, who supports the statement of above witness with regard to raid and recovery of chits and rupee one note from Adam applicant so also P. W. 3 Abdul Aziz. P. W. 4 Muhammad Siddique is a bogus customer. He stated that he went with the police in the street where applicant Adam was receiving Satta money, the applicants were present. He passed on the tainted money to Adam and then he gave signal to police. The police searched them and secured the money and chits from him.
5. The applicants denied the allegations in their statements under section 342, Cr. P. C. Nothing from the cross-examination came out to show that the prosecution witnesses are not telling the truth and no enmity has been alleged against them by the apnlicants. The admitted position is that the tainted movey of rupee one along with the Satta chit in return of rupee one, was A recovered from applicant Adam. No tainted money was given to the other applicants. I am therefore, of the opinion that the case of applicant Adam is distinguishable from the other applicants because there is sufficient evidence against applicant Adam, he accepted the tainted money and on return gave the chit which `has been exhibited but with regard to the other applicants, there is no such allegation therefore, to my opinion the case of the prosecution has not sufficiently been proved that the other applicants were in fact gambling there. Unless it is proved that the were gambling there, their conviction cannot be upheld. I there---fore, accept the petition of Haider Mehdi, Abdul Qadar and Ali, acquit them and set aside their conviction. The fine paid may be refunded to them. But in view of the overwhelming evidence against applicant Adam dismiss his application and sustain his conviction and sentence awarded to him. Judgment was announced on 5-3-73, here are the reasons for it.