ORDER S.D. Singh, J. - This is an application in revision by one Zeenatullah who, along with others was convicted u/s 13 of the Gambling Act and also u/s 224 of the IPC. 2. What actually took place was that on 29-6-1965 information was received by constable Harnandan Prasad (PW 1) of police out-post Khakra within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kotwali, Pilibhit, that gambling was going on at a particular place. He took some constables with him as also some members of the public and raided the place and was successful in arresting three out of eight persons who were found gambling. The Applicant was one of those persons who managed to escape, but he was given a chase and was arrested and it is alleged that he thereafter managed to secure his release. Some of the persons who were prosecuted for the offence were acquitted by the Sessions Judge who heard the appeal and some others who were convicted along with the Applicant have not come up in revision to this Court. This revision has been filed only by Zeenatullah and the main contention on his behalf was that the place where the gambling was alleged to have been going on was not a public place. 3. The Investigating Officer prepared a site plan which is Ex. Ka. 7 on the record. The location of the place where gambling is alleged to have been going on is a south-east corner which could hardly be frequented fey any person. It may be noted from the site plan itself that immediately to the east of the place where the gambling is alleged to have been going on there is a row of shops facing east. All these shops have consequently their backs towards the place in question. Then to the south of the place is a mosque and the site plan does not show any door or opening towards this place. Naturally this mosque must have its facing either towards south or towards east. Immediately to the north of this place at some distance is a mazar which has been described even in the evidence as a khander. Then there is open space to the west and north of the place of occurrence. There are houses in the site plan at some distance. No one is likely to frequent southeast corner behind the mosque in the walls. 4. Then there is open space to the west and north of the place of occurrence. There are houses in the site plan at some distance. No one is likely to frequent southeast corner behind the mosque in the walls. 4. Section 13 of the Gambling Act makes gambling punishable if it is found to be going on "in any public street, common place or thoroughfare." The word "Public" in this expression obviously qualifies all the words succeeding the words "street", "place" and "thoroughfare". The expression has, therefore, only to be read as "public street, public place or public thoroughfare". The expression "public place" gets sandwiched between "public street" and "public thoroughfare" and will, therefore, have its sense from the other two expressions "public street" and "public thoroughfare". Even if the word "place" is understood as a place other than a lane, bye lane, road or things of that kind, it must at least be a place which is frequently visited by the members of the public. It is because of this that gambling has been prohibited at public place aforesaid. Reliance was placed by the Learned Counsel for the Applicant on Govinda v. Emperor (1936) 162 IC 886 in which a view has been taken that whether a particular place is a public place would depend upon the character of the place itself and the use actually made of it. Reference is made in this case to an earlier decision of the Court of the Nagpur Judicial Commissioner reported in Vithu v. Emperor 21 IC 910 in which it has been observed: the gist of the evil aimed at is such publicity of action that the ordinary passerby cannot well avoid seeing it and being enticed if his inclination be that way to joining in or follow the bad example openly placed in his way. 5. Obviously the view taken in these two decisions is that the place where gambling takes place in order to invite application of Section 13 of the Gambling Act must be a place which is frequently visited by the public or which is at least liable to be visited by the public rather frequently at all hours. This corner is certainly not such a place. This corner is certainly not such a place. It is as a matter of fact screened from the public view inasmuch as it is behind the row of shops on the eastern side and the mosque on the southern side. Since there was no gambling in a public place, even the arrest for having indulged in an offence of gambling was illegal. No offence can be said to have been committed by him if he managed to effect his escape. 6. The revision is allowed. The Applicant is acquitted of the charges u/s 13 of the Gambling Act and Section 224 of the IPC. He need not surrender to his bail bonds which will stand cancelled. Any fine which may have been realised from him will be refunded to him.