1 2026:CGHC:1001 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.96 of 2011 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus 1. Tarun Chandra, S/o A.K. Chandra, aged about 39 years, R/o Naya Bazar Rajhara, 2. Harishankar, S/o.-Sukhlal, Aged about 30 years, R/o.- Subhash Chowk Dalli Rajhara, 3. Khokhan @ Subrat Shah, S/o.- D.C. Shah, Aged about 40 years, R/o.- Hospital Sector, Rajhara, 4. Ashwanisoni, S/o.- Johan, Aged about 50 years, R/o.- Puran Bazar, Dalli Rajhara, 5. Santosh Sahu, S/o.- Awad Ram, Aged about 60 years, R/o.- Teblar Sit Rajhara, 6. Umashankar, S/o.- Narottam Lal, Aged about-48 years, R/o.- Hospital Sector, Rajhara, 7. Nilesh Jaiswal, S/o.- C.L. Jaiswal, Aged about-28 years, R/o.- Dondi, P.S. – Dondi, 8. Manish Jha, S/o.- Kaushlendra Jha, aged about 30 years, R/o.- Dondi, District - Durg (C.G.), 9. Sukhvinder Singh, S/o.- Late Shri Mahendra Singh, Aged about 45 years, R/o.- Bhanupratappur, P.S. -Bhanupratappur, District Kanker, 10. Shrawan Kumar, S/o.- Ramnayak, Aged about 45 years R/o.- Purana Bus Stand, Rajhara, PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2026.01.08 16:56:23 +0530 2 11.Vijay Kumar, S/o:- Akshpowar Chouhan, Aged about 28 years, R/o.- Dondi District – Durg, 12. Mukesh Kumar, S/o. Manaklal Jain, Aged about 33 years, R/o. Dondi P.S.- Dondi Distt. – Durg, 13. Tijesh, S/o.- Sahadur Ram, 14. Keshwav Lal Salame, S/o.- Late Sahadur Ram, Aged about 18 years R/o.- Rajolidih, P.S.- Dondi District - Durg (C.G.), ... Respondents For Appellant/State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. For Respondents : None Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 07 .01.2026 1. This appeal against acquittal has been preferred by the Appellant/State, arising out of the judgment dated 18.08.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajhara, District - Durg, in Criminal Case No.700/2009, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents herein of the charge under Sections 13 and 4 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.08.2009, the Station House Officer, Police Station – Dondi, namely, K.P. Markam (PW-12), received the information that some persons were playing cards and were involved in gambling at Rajolidih Rest House. Thereafter, he alongwith other police officials and witnesses went at the spot where they caught accused/respondent No.1 to 12 red handed with 2 packs of playing cards and total cash amount of Rs.1,53,000/- were seized from there possession in different denominations. Respondent No.13 was also accompanied with other accused persons and respondent No.14 3 was the watchman of the said Rest House, therefore, they were also charged with offence under Section 4 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867. Thereafter, seizure memo (Ex.P-1), spot map (Ex.P-17) and arrest memo were prepared. Subsequently, FIR (Ex.P-18) was registered against the accused/respondents. During investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. 3. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondents before the competent trial Court under Sections 13 and 4 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867. The accused/respondents denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and prayed for a trial. 4. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondents herein of said charge leveled against them. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant/State submits that the learned trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused/respondents herein of the above charges by recording perverse findings. He further submits that the evidence available on record clearly shows that the accused/respondents were involved in playing cards and committing gambling. Despite such cogent and clinching evidence, the learned trial Court, without appreciating the material on record in its proper perspective, committed a grave error in acquitting the accused/respondents. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 6. None appears on behalf of the Respondents. 4 7. I have heard learned counsel for the Appellant / State and perused the material available on record. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 9. To deal with the contentions made by learned State Counsel, it would be apt to discuss the evidence of the investigating officer, K.P. Markam (PW-12), who after receiving the information that some persons were playing cards in Rajolidih Rest House and were involved in gambling, he alongwith other police officials reached at the spot. This witness in his Court statement has stated that he along with police staff and witnesses, namely, Anil Kumar (PW-10) and Tekan Sahu (PW-11) reached at the spot where the accused/respondent No.1 to 12 were playing cards (kat patti) and were involved in gambling. Thereafter, seizure proceedings was done and a sum of Rs.1,53,000/- and mobile phones from the possession of different respondents were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-1. However, this witness in his cross-examination has clearly stated that there is no mention of seizure of playing cards in the seizure memo Ex.P-1. 10. Seizure witnesses namely, Anil Kumar (PW-10) and Tekan Sahu (PW- 5 11) in their Court statements have not supported the case of the prosecution. They have further stated that they did not know about the accused persons whether they were playing cards and involved in gambling, further, no seizure was made before them. Thus, both the independent witnesses have turned hostile. 11. Suman Singh Thakur (PW-03), Constable in his testimony has also deposed that on the date of incident i.e. 09.08.2009, the accused persons were playing cards in Rajolidih Rest House and during search proceeding, a sum of Rs.1,53,000/- and mobile phones were seized from their possession. However, this witness in his cross-examination has admitted that when he and other police staff entered the room, he saw only three persons present inside the room and other persons were standing outside the room. Thus, it appears that there are contradictions and omissions in the statement of this witness. 12. K.S. Suryavanshi (PW-02), Sub-Inspector who also accompanied other police officials at the spot, has deposed that on the date of incident, at Rajolidih Rest House, he saw that accused persons were playing cards and there were two sets of playing cards and a sum of Rs.1,53,000/- were found from their possession. He further deposed that on the instruction of Thana Incharge, he prepared seizure memo (Ex.P-1). However, this witness in his cross-examination has admitted that he prepared the seizure memo (Ex.P-1), which does not mention the seizure of two packs of 52 playing cards. 13. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence came to the conclusion that there is no evidence on record to show that 6 accused/respondents were playing cards and involved in gambling. This apart, the two packs of playing cards which is said to have used for gambling, were not recovered from the spot and its seizure is also not mentioned in the seizure memo (Ex.P-1). Furthermore, the seizure witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. It is pertinent to mention here that it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but in the present case, the prosecution has not been able to discharge its duty by adducing cogent and clinching evidence to show the complicity of the accused persons in the crime in question. 14. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the learned trial Court, I am of considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused/respondents herein of the said charge is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 15. Accordingly, this appeal by the Appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused/respondents herein is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash