JUDGMENT J.M.L. Sinha, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1-6-1966 passed by Sri C.P. Dwivedi, a Magistrate 1st Class at Meerut acquitting the Respondent of the offence u/s 13 of the Public Gambling Act. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal can briefly be stated as under: On 10-7-1965 near about 8.30 PM Sri Rajpat Singh, Head Constable, received information through an informer that Mangat Respondent along with Puran was doing satta khai bari near railway road, Hapur. The Head Constable, therefore, picked up two witnesses and proceeded in the direction of railway road, Hapur. On reaching the place of occurrence the party took cover behind a wall and saw the Respondent taking down the bets on a slip of paper and Puran realising money from the person who was making the bets. The Police party was able to arrest Mangat Respondent. Puran and the person who was laying the bets were however able to mate good their escape. On a search of Mangat Respondent he was found in possession of small change of Rs. 6/12/-, a fountain pen, four Parcha sattas and three plain parchas. A memo was prepared in evidence of the recovery and the articles recovered were sealed on the spot. The Respondent along with the recovered articles was then taken to the Police Station concerned where a report was made by the Head Constable. A case u/s 13 of the Public Gambling Act was registered on the basis thereof. The case was investigated into by Harpal Singh SI (PW 4) who submitted a charge-sheet for the prosecution of the Respondent and that of Puran. The latter died during the pendency of the case with the result that the case proceeded only against Mangat Respondent. 3. The defence set up by the Respondent was a total denial of the prosecution case. 4. The trial court on a consideration of the evidence on record remarked that the case against the Appellant rested only on the recovery of parcha sattas. Placing reliance on the case Habib v. State 1966 ALJ 176 : 1965 AWR 761 the learned Magistrate concluded that mere possession of parcha satta did not constitute an offence u/s 13 of the Public Gambling Act and in the result, acquitted the Respondent. Feeling aggrieved against the decision of the trial court the State filed an appeal in this Court. 5. Feeling aggrieved against the decision of the trial court the State filed an appeal in this Court. 5. The appeal came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court who felt that while deciding the case of Habib v. State this Court did not take into consideration the amendment made in Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act by UP Act XXI of 1961 and therefore the learned single Judge by his order dated 8-7-1969 directed that the papers be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for the case being referred to a Division Bench. It it thus that this case has come up before us. 6. We have heard learned Counsel on either side and have also perused the record. 7. It is admitted before us on both hands that the prosecution case against the Respondent rested or the allegation that he was found in possession of parcha sattas. The question for consideration in the present appeal is, therefore, two fold:-- 1. Whether parcha sattas are instruments of gaming? 2. Whether mere possession of an instrument of gaming with any person in a public street, place or thoroughfare constitutes an offence punishable u/s 13 of the Public Gambling Act? 8. The expression instrument of gaming* is defined in Section 1 of the Act. The relevant part of Section 1 after its amendment reads as follows: Instrument of gamming includes any weight used as a means or the appurtenance of, or for the purposes of carrying on or facilitating, gaming: and, in particular, satta papers, that is to say, any document wherein may be recorded any words and/or figures evidencing bets and used or intended to be used for or in connection with gaming; Explanation: If any document is recovered from the possession of any person containing words and/or figures, which prima facie appear to evidence bets, it shall be presumed that the words and figures evidence bets and the document was used or intended to be used for gaming unless the person aforesaid proves to the contrary. 9. In the case before us, according to the prosecution, four parchas were recovered from the possession of Respondent. The details of the contents of these parchas are mentioned in recovery memo Exh. Ka. (1). 9. In the case before us, according to the prosecution, four parchas were recovered from the possession of Respondent. The details of the contents of these parchas are mentioned in recovery memo Exh. Ka. (1). In the 1st parcha the first entry was that of date and thereafter there was written number of 65' against an amount of four annas and number of 6' against an amount of eight annas. At the end of the Parcha was recorded the name of 'Haria'. The second parcha mentioned the number of 25' against one Rupee and the number of 7' against /10/-. The contents of third parcha are not intelligibly written in the recovery memo. The fourth parcha mentioned the number of 65' against -/2/- and the number of 35' against -/2/3 and also mentioned some names in Mundia. 10. In view of the contents of three parchas mentioned above there should be no doubt that they constituted parcha sattas. Two of them not only mentioned the numbers and the amounts but also mentioned the names. The Explanation appended to the definition of the expression "instrument of gaming." makes it quite clear that if any document recovered from the possession of any person contains words, figures or both it can reasonably be said about that, document on the basis of the figures written therein that they prima facie appear to evidence bets unless the contrary is shown. In regard to three of the parchas said to have been recovered from the possession of the Respondent, it should therefore be presumed, that the words and figures contained therein evidenced bets and that they were used or intended to be used for gaming. 11. It may not be out of place to add that even before the explanation was appended to the definition of the express "instruments of gaming" such parchas were accepted to be instruments of gaming in a series of cases. See: Lachchi Ram Vs. Emperor, AIR 1922 All 61 , Ismail and Others Vs. Emperor , Atma Ram v. Emperor AIR 1924 All 338 (FB), Lachhi Ram v. Emperor 1933 (2) AWR 476, Kabul Singh v. Emperor 1940 AWR 391 , Emperor v. Basant Lal 1941 AWR (HC) 220, Sagar Chand v. State of UP 1962 AWR 826 and Deep Chand v. State 1967 AWR 870 . 12. Emperor , Atma Ram v. Emperor AIR 1924 All 338 (FB), Lachhi Ram v. Emperor 1933 (2) AWR 476, Kabul Singh v. Emperor 1940 AWR 391 , Emperor v. Basant Lal 1941 AWR (HC) 220, Sagar Chand v. State of UP 1962 AWR 826 and Deep Chand v. State 1967 AWR 870 . 12. Even in the case of Habib v. State 1965 AWR 761 , which has given rise to this reference, the learned single Judge accepted that such parchas constitute "instruments of gaming." It was observed: It will be noticed that the scope of the amended definition is wider and that, inter alia, it clarifies that satta papers are instruments of gaming and further that if any document is recovered from the possession of any person containing words and/or figures which prima facie appear evidence of bets it shall be presumed that the words and figures evidence bets and the document was used or intended to be used for gaming unless the person proves to the contrary. 13. Reference was made on behalf of the Respondent to the case Kadir v. State 1960 AWR 129 in support of the contention that parcha sattas cannot constitute instruments of gaming. That case is distinguishable on more than one ground. The parcha sattas recovered in that case only mentioned figures which indicated numbers or amounts of money. No name was written in either of the parchas recovered. As opposed to this in the case before us names as well were written in two parchas. Again, the case of Kadir v. State (supra) was decided--before the amendment of Section 13 by Act XXI of 1961. At that time in order to bring home a charge u/s 13 of the Public Gambling Act against any person, it was necessary to prove that he was gaming. It was alleged in that case that the gambling was being done in a public place. The presumption of Section 6 of the Act was also therefore not available to the prosecution. It was in this context that the learned Judge deciding the case held that the recovery of parcha did not prove the prosecution case. The position has vastly changed after the amendment of Act XXI of 1961, for, now even the possession of an instrument of gaming, which includes a parcha satta has become an offence u/s 13 of the Act. The position has vastly changed after the amendment of Act XXI of 1961, for, now even the possession of an instrument of gaming, which includes a parcha satta has become an offence u/s 13 of the Act. The case of Kadir v. State (supra) can, therefore, be of no assistance to the Respondent. 14. Reference was also made before us on behalf of the Respondent to the case Shyam Lal Vs. State, AIR 1969 All 183 . The accused in this case was convicted by the Magistrate u/s 13 of the Gambling Act on the basis of the recovery of parcha sattas and other articles. The accused went up in revision before the Sessions Judge who found that the accused had not been examined in accordance with law and he, therefore, referred the case to the High Court. The learned single Judge who decided the reference found that, apart from the fact that the accused had not been properly examined, there was also the fact that there was no evidence of actual gaming and that the evidence adduced at best proved that the accused had made preparations for gambling which, in the opinion of the learned single Judge, was not an offence. Needless to say that in that case too the amendments made in Section 13 by Act XXI of 1961 were not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge. A perusal of the amended Section 13 would show that now even preparation for gaming or for aiding or abetting is an offence. The observations made by the learned single Judge are based on oversight and if we can say so, do not state the legal position correctly. 15. We have, therefore, no hesitation in concluding that out of the parchas alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the Respondent atleast three constituted instruments of gaming within the meaning of that expression as defined in Section 1 of the Act. 16. This takes us to the second point namely whether mere possession of instrument of gaming if not properly explained would constitute an offence u/s 13 of the Public Gambling Act. 16. This takes us to the second point namely whether mere possession of instrument of gaming if not properly explained would constitute an offence u/s 13 of the Public Gambling Act. The relevant part of Section 13 after its amendment by UP Act XXI of 1961 reads as follows: A Police Officer may apprehend without warrant....or any person found in any public street, place or thoroughfare within the limits aforesaid with any instruments of gaming; or; Such persons when apprehended shall be brought without delay before a Magistrate and shall be liable.... In the case of a first offence to a fine not exceeding Rs. 250/- nor less than Rs. 50/- or to rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month and in the case of any subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding five hundred rupees nor less than one hundred rupees and rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months nor less than one month.... 17. A perusal of the above would show that if any person is found in possession of instruments of gaming he is punishable u/s 13 of the Act. In the case of Habib v. State (Supra) the learned single Judge arrived at a contrary conclusion because the relevant clause inserted in Section 13 by Act XXI of 1961 as reproduced above was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge. Instead the learned single Judge took into consideration the first clause of Section 13 under which an offence is made out only if it is shown that the person concerned was found gaming on public street or thoroughfare. We are confident that the decision in the case of Habib v. State (Supra) would have been otherwise if the amendment made therein by Act XXI of 1961 has been brought to the notice of the leaned single Judge deciding that case, 18. Therefore, with respect to the learned single Judge deciding the case of Habib v. State (Supra.) we find that the case of Habib v. State (Supra) was not rightly decided and that even if any person found in any public street, place or thoroughfare is in possession of instruments of gaming, which include parcha sattas, he would be guilty of an offence u/s 13 of the Act. 19. 19. Coming to the facts of the present case it was proved on the evidence of Rajpat Singh, Head Constable (PW 1), Dal Singh (PW 2) and Satpal (PW 3) that parchas Exhs. 2 to 5 were recovered from the possession of the Respondent. The evidence of all the three witnesses is consistent on the point of recovery. While Rajpat Singh is the Head Constable who arranged the said, Dal Chand (PW 2) and Satpal (PW 3) are public witnesses. It could not be shown that Dal Chand and Satpal were either under the influence of the police or had any enmity with the Respondent for which reason they would have perjured themselves to support the prosecution case against the Respondent. Placing reliance on the evidence of the three witnesses we find that the Respondent was in possession of parch sattas Exhs. 2 to 5. We have already held earlier that at least three of those parchas constituted "instruments of gaining". It is also borne out from the statement of the three witnesses that the Respondent was in a public place when found in possession of parcha sattas. A case u/s 13 of the Public Gambling Act was, therefore, clearly made out against the Respondent. The order passed by the learned Magistrate acquitting the Respondent must, therefore, be reversed. 20. The only question that remains to be considered is that of sentence. It is not mentioned either in the charge-sheet or in the record of the statement made by the Respondent in the court below as to what is the age of the Respondent. No previous conviction is however shown as recorded against the Respondent in the charge-sheet nor any previous conviction has been otherwise proved against him. We are, therefore of the opinion that a sentence of fine of Rs. 50/- should meet the ends of justice. 21. In the result the Government appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned Magistrate acquitting the Respondent of the offence u/s 13, Public Gambling Act is set aside and he is instead convicted of the same and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50/- only. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo to one month's rigorous imprisonment. Appeal allowed.