ORDER Mahesh Chandra, J. - This is an application in revision against the judgment and order of both the courts below convicting the Applicant u/s 13 Public Gambling Act and sentencing him to one month's R.I. 2. The Applicant was according to the prosecution case, found carrying one Satta paper and a pencil on a public road near the crusher of one Jaipal Singh in village Makhyali on 25-5-1964 at about 7 P.M. The pencil and Satta paper were recovered from his possession by constable Ram Singh in the presence of Ram Saran and Ram Lal (PWs 3 and 4). The Applicant was taken to the police station Kotwali along with the Satta paper and the pencil and there they were sealed in an envelope in the presence of PWs 3 and 4. 3. The defence was that no Satta paper was recovered from his possession and that he was actually brought to P.S. Kotwali by a constable from his house at about 2 p.m. on the pretext that he was wanted by the Sub Inspector and that a false case was concocted against the Applicant at the instigation of Singru Pradhan and Ma-khan Singh, enemies of the Applicant. One witness Vikram Singh was examined in defence. 4. Both the courts below have considered the evidence in detail and come to the conclusion that from the statements of the prosecution witnesses it has been clearly established that the Applicant was found in possession of the Satta paper and pencil and that the Applicant along with Satta paper and the pencil was taken to the police station and that the Satta paper and the pencil were sealed in an envelope in the presence of PWs 3 and 4. Both the courts below have also disbelieved Vikram Singh (DW 1). 5. The first contention of the learned Counsel for the Applicant is that the witnesses were illiterate. Nothing was pointed out to me in the statement of PW 3 to show that he was illiterate. PW 1 says that he himself is not literate, but even then he says that he recognises very well the Satta paper recovered from the possession of the Applicant. PWs 1, 3 and 4 went with the Applicant and the Satta paper and the pencil to the Thana and the Satta paper and pencil were sealed in an envelope in their presence. PWs 1, 3 and 4 went with the Applicant and the Satta paper and the pencil to the Thana and the Satta paper and pencil were sealed in an envelope in their presence. The courts below were therefore not in error in believing PWs 1, 3 and 4 regarding the recovery of tire Satta paper from the possession of the Applicant. 6. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the Applicant is that mere possession of the Satta paper does not mean gambling. This contention has no force after the amendment of 1961 in the U.P. Public Gambling Act. Section 13 as amended reads as follows: Gaming and setting birds and animals to fight in public streets-- A police officer may apprehend without warrant any person found gaming in any public street, place or thoroughfare situated within the limits aforesaid, or any person found in any public street, place or thoroughfare within the limits of the aforesaid, with any instruments of gaming.... 7. The section further provides that such a person would be liable in the case of a first offence to a fine not exceeding Rs. 250/-nor less than Rs. 50/- or to imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding one month. 8. This amendment makes the very possession of an instrument of gaming in a public street punishable u/s 13 U.P. Public Gambling Act. That a Satta Parcha is an instrument of gaming is also clear from the interpretation clause, Section 1 of U.P. Gambling Act as now amended. In fact even earlier than the amendment Satta Parchas had been held by this Court to be instruments of gaming. 9. The Applicant was, therefore, rightly convicted u/s 13 U.P. Public Gambling Act. 10. The result is that the revision is dismissed but the sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for the period of a fortnight. The Applicant is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail and serve out the reduced sentence. His bail bonds are cancelled.