ORDER :- The three applicants in this criminal revision have been convicted by a first class Magistrate of Meerut for offences under the Public Gambling Act - Sagar Chand under Sec. 3 of the Act, Desraj and Dewan Chand under Sec. 4. Sagar Chand has been fined Rs. 100/- and the other two applicants Rs. 50/- each. Their convictions and sentences were confirmed in appeal by the Civil and Sessions Judge of Meerut. 2. The allegations put forward by the prosecution in this case were that on 23-1-1959, having received credible information that the house of the applicant Sagar Chand was used as a common gaming house, the City Magistrate of Meerut issued a search warrant empowering the Station Officer of Lalkurti Police Station to search the premises; and at 5 p. m. on 29-1-1959 acting on the basis of this warrant, the Sub-Inspector went to the said house with a number of constables and other witnesses. The raiding party concealed themselves close by and from their hiding place saw Dewan Chand applicant enter the house and hand over two 'satta parchas' and Rs. 5/13/-in cash to Sagar Chand applicant, asking him to write down the bets. Sagar Chand took the 'parchas' and the cash from him and began to dictate the bets from the slips to the third applicant Desraj, who proceeded to make entries on a sheet of paper described as a 'jantri'. The police party at this stage came out of their hiding place and arrested all the three of the applicants. The two 'satta' slips and cash were recovered from the possession of Sagar Chand, the 'jantri' from Desraj and four blank slips from Dewan Chand. 3. The police party at this stage came out of their hiding place and arrested all the three of the applicants. The two 'satta' slips and cash were recovered from the possession of Sagar Chand, the 'jantri' from Desraj and four blank slips from Dewan Chand. 3. The main point for decision in this case is whether the house in question was being used as a common gaming house, as defined in Sec. 1 of the U. P. Public Gambling Act, which runs as follows :- " 'Common Gaming House' means - (1) In the case of gaming on the digits of the sale of any commodity, for example, opium or cotton, or on the digits of papers or bales manipulated from within jars or other receptacles, or on the occurrence or non-occurrence of any natural events, for example, rainfall or the quantity of rainfall, any house, room, tent, walled enclosure, space, vehicle, vessel or any place whatsoever in which instruments of gaming are kept or used for such gaming; (2) In the case of any other form of gaming, any house, room, tent, wailed enclosure, space, vehicle, vessel or any place whatsoever in which any instruments of gaming are kept or used for the profit or gain of the person owning, occupying, using or keeping such house, room, tent, enclosure, space, vehicle, vessel, or place whether by way of charge for the use of such house, room, tent, walled enclosure, space, vehicle, vessel, place or otherwise howsoever." The crux of the case therefore is whether the articles recovered from the possession of the applicants inside that house can be said to be instruments of gaming. Learned counsel for the applicants has strenuously argued that 'satta' parchas' are mere memoranda of bets and not things used for the purpose of gambling; and in support of his contention he relies on certain observations made by Desai J. in the case of Qadir v. State, AIR 1959 All 799 , in which the learned Judge remarked : "If the slips are a record of bets (it is not suggested what else they are), they are nothing but documentary evidence of gaming and are no more instruments of gaming than any other evidence of gaming, such as a statement that gaming took place. Evidence of gaming cannot possibly be an instrument of gaming because evidence of gaming comes into existence after the gaming; an instrument of gaming must be an article which has been of some use in the course of gaming. Gaming is over as soon as a bet is made; no slips are required for making a bet or for accepting it. They may be used after the betting is over to record the bets, but they would not thereby become instruments of gaming." I may point out however that that was a case under Section 13 of the Act, for gambling in a public place, and the question of what articles were comprised in instruments of gaming was not directly in issue there. Moreover the matter is concluded by Division Bench decisions of this Court. In Lachchi Ram v. Emperor, AIR 1922 All 61, Gokul Prasad and Stuart JJ. observed : "On the facts we are satisfied that the tickets contained in the book were being used as forms of memoranda on which to record wagers ......The tickets in question........are instruments of gaming as they were used for the purpose of carrying on gaming. . . . .Instruments of gaming include articles used as a means or appurtenance of, or for the purpose of carrying on or facilitating gaming." Again, in Emperor v. Basant Lal, 42 Cr. LJ 864 : (AIR 1941 All 330), which was a case relating to a form of 'satta' gambling Ismail and Mulla JJ., following the decision in Lachhi Ram v. Emperor (AIR 1933 All 554), held that 'satta' slips or parchas were undoubtedly instruments of gaming and that the recovery of such slips from a house would give rise to a presumption under Sec. 6 of the Act that the house in question was being used as a common gaming house. 4. It is clear therefore that the slips that were recovered in the present case were instruments of gaming and consequently, by virtue of the first clause of the definition quoted above, Sagar Chand's house was being used as a common gaming house. 5. Furthermore under Sec. 6 of the Act the recovery of the slips gave rise to the presumption that the premises were being used as a common gaming house. 5. Furthermore under Sec. 6 of the Act the recovery of the slips gave rise to the presumption that the premises were being used as a common gaming house. An attempt was made to argue that the search warrant issued in this case was illegal and that consequently this presumption under Sec. 6 could not be drawn, but I can see no sign of any illegality. The Magistrate was clearly satisfied on the basis of information supplied by the police that Sagar Chand's house was being used as a common gaming house and issued the search warrant accordingly. It was suggested that the warrant was invalid because the magistrate had not dated it; but on perusing the document in question I see that the date of issue is mentioned in the body of the warrant. No doubt this date was written by some clerk, but I see nothing illegal or even irregular in that. It was not necessary for the Magistrate to insert the date with his own hand - it was quite sufficient for him to sign at the foot of the warrant and to affix his seal. 6. The only other point raised was that no direct question had been put to the applicants as to whether the articles recovered from their possession were being used for the purpose of gambling. It is true that this was not asked in so many words, but the questions that were actually put were quite sufficient to cover this point and to meet the requirements of law. Desraj was asked whether he was caught writing 'satta bets', Dewan Chand whether he was caught handing over 'parchas' and money to Sagar Chand for 'Satta gambling' and Sagar Chand whether two 'satta parchas' were recovered from him. In the circumstances I see no reason to hold that the examination of the accused in this case was in any way defective or that any prejudice has been caused to the accused thereby. 7. This revision is without force and is accordingly rejected, the convictions and sentences of the applicants being confirmed. The stay of realisation of the fines which was granted on 7-1-1960 is vacated. Revision dismissed.