ORDER Tripathi, J. - These revisions arise out of a common judgment of a Magistrate First Class, Pratapgarh, convicting the applicants, for an offence under the UP Gambling Act. Applicant Lalloo Mal has been convicted u/s 3 of the Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The other applicants have been held guilty u/s 4 of the Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150/- each and in default of such payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for five weeks. Their convictions as recorded by the learned Magistrate were affirmed on appeal by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge of Pratapgarh. They have now come up in revision. 2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the State I am of opinion that these revisions must be allowed. Section 4(1)(f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads: "Cognizable offence" means an, offence for, and "cognizable case" means a case in which a police officer, within or without the Presidency-towns, may, in accordance with the second schedule or under any law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant." Schedule II of the Code provides that in offences against other laws which are punishable with imprisonment for one year and up wards but less than three years or with imprisonment for less than one year or with fine only, the police shall not arrest the offender without a warrant. Thus according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the UP Public Gambling Act can never be held to be cognizable offences as they are punishable only either with fine or with an imprisonment which cannot exceed in any case beyond twelve months. 3. It is no doubt true that u/s 5 of the UP Public Gambling Act the District Superintendent of Police or any police officer not below such rank specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government has got the power to take into custody an offender without a warrant. That, however, will not make the offence, cognizable so far as Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned. 4. That, however, will not make the offence, cognizable so far as Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned. 4. As the trials of offences under the Public Gambling Act are also to be conducted in accordance with, the procedure prescribed under the Code it is the definition given in the Code of the "cognizable offence'' which is relevant for deciding the mode of the trial. 5. In the case of Public Prosecutor Vs. A.V. Ramiah, AIR 1958 AP 392 a Division Bench consisting of Subba Rao, C.J. and Basi Reddy, J. held: "an offence u/s 12 of the Madras Gambling Act is not a cognizable offence within the meaning of Section 4(1)(f), Code of Criminal Procedure and the police officer cannot investigate into it without the order of a Magistrate as required by Section 155 (2), Code of Criminal Procedure ". It was further held by the said Bench: "If a police officer does investigate into such offence, without the order of the Magistrate, and files a charge sheet, it is nevertheless to be treated as a complaint and not as a police report." This decision was referred with approval by Hon'ble Desai, J. (as he then was; in the case of Jai Prakash v. State (2) ( 1961 AWR 149 ), and his Lordship was pleased to observe that: "Offences of Sections 3 and 4 of the UP Public Gambling Act are not cognizable offences. The Police have no power to arrest a person accused of that without a warrant... Since the offences of Sections 3 and 4 of the UP Public Gambling Act are not cognizable offences the police had no power to investigate them without an order of a Magistrate...if the police investigate a non-cognizable offence without an order of the competent Magistrate and submit a report to a court for taking cognizance of the offence it would be treated as a complaint case." Admittedly in the instant case permission was not obtained by the police for investigating it as required under Sub-section (2) of Section 155 of the Act. Therefore, in view of the authorities cited above, it must be held that the chargesheet submitted by them against the applicant to the court ought to have been treated by the Magistrate as a complaint and he should have followed the procedure in conducting the proceeding as prescribed under Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as the complaint showed an offence of the nature of a summons case, he ought to have tried it in accordance with Chapter XX of the Code. 6. The order sheet of the case shows that in spite of the fact that none of the witnesses were present on various dates fixed in the case between 15.4.1963 and 14.6.1963 when the applicants were present in court the Magistrate seems to have been labouring under an impression that he was trying a cognizable offence on the report submitted by the police and did not dismiss the case as was required of him u/s 247 of the Code. The reason given by him for granting repeated adjournments in the case was only this that as the witnesses were not present, the case had to be adjourned. I have, therefore, no doubt in my mind that in the circumstances of die case it must be held that when the complainant and the witnesses absented themselves from the court of the Magistrate on repeated dates, the case ought to have been dismissed and applicants acquitted u/s 247 of the Code. 7. In view of the illegal procedure adopted by the Magistrate in trying the case, the conviction of the applicants cannot be sustained. 8. The revisions are allowed and the conviction and sentence of the applicants are set aside. Applicant Lalloo is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. He need not surrender. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded.