JUDGMENT - R.K. JOSHI, J.:---The appellant original accused No. 1 has been convicted under section 12(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, and sentenced to R.I. for one month with a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to suffer R.I. for two weeks by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay. The prosecution case narrated in brief was that the Inspector of Police attached to the anti Gambling Squad, C.B. C.I.D., Bombay had information that accepting of Matka bets was going on the foot-path near Grant Oriental Hotel, Play House, Bombay. Besides the appellant, another person Prabhkar Ramkrishna whose where abouts are not traced to this day, were indulging in this acceptance of bets. On getting this information the Police Inspector secured the services of a punter, asked him to verify the information and thereafter handed him over a currency note of Re 1/- denomination in the presence of the panchas in the evening of 23rd November, 1971. The Punter was instructed to lay bet on Matka figures 2 to 3 open to close. The Punter laid bets, obtained the chit from the appellant and on coming out gave the pre-arranged signal upon which the raid was carried out and articles like ball pen, carbon copy of Matka book, cash etc. were attached. On completing the preliminaries the appellant along was put on trial. His defence was of a total denial. For the prosecution three witnesses went into the witness box viz., the punter Abdul Rehman Hussain, the panch Pawar and the Police Officer Mr. Sawant. The Punter Abdul Rehman spoke in vague terms without giving the instructions imported to him by the Police Officer of the nature of game or the purpose of collecting bets in the presence of panchas, that he was asked to verify whether gambling was going on. The Punter reported in the affirmative. Then two panchas were summoned and their presence a currency note of one rupee denomination was given to him with instructions to lay bet on figures 2 to 3. The Punter carried out the command, obtained a chit from accused No. 1 which is produced and marked as Ex. A and gave the pre-arranged signal on which the place was a raided and the articles referred to above were seized. The Punter carried out the command, obtained a chit from accused No. 1 which is produced and marked as Ex. A and gave the pre-arranged signal on which the place was a raided and the articles referred to above were seized. The Punter appeared in about 100 cases, but even then he could not give the particulars of the game of the instructions given to him. The evidence of the panch Pawar does not take the prosecution case further. He spoke in somewhat overall terms in saying that the Punter was asked to lay bets on figures 2 to 3. He refuted the suggestion of acting as panch in about ten cases. But that is neither here nor there. The Police Officer Mr. Sawant who was expected to throw light in some details on such games, gave evidence in cryptic terms. He did not even remotely touch the elements of the game, what he asked to verify, what was the information received from the Punter and why he told him to lay bet of Rs. 1/- on figures 2 to 3. He did not even indicate what these figures 2 to 3 covered and how they were arrived at. Consequently, there was no cross-examination. The accused in his statement under section 342 of the Cri.P.C. denied the entire allegations made against him and asserted that Ex. A was got written from him at the Police Station. The carbon copy appears in the book produced. The charge is under section 12(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act which penalises a person found gaming or reasonably suspected to gaming in any public street. Gaming has been defined in section 3 which is an inclusive definition which includes wagering or betting except wagering or betting upon a horse-race. This section further defines instruments of gaming to include any article used or intended to be used as a subject or means of gaming, or any document used or intended to be used as a register or record or evidence of any gaming, the proceeds of any gaming, and any winnings or prizes in money or otherwise distributed or intended to be distributed in respect of any gaming. In view of these provisions of law, the initial question would be whether the evidence satisfactorily establishes that what is attached by the Police Officer in the presence of panchas are instruments of gaming and whether really the accused was gaming in a public place. The evidence summarised in the foregoing paragraphs is too vague. Nobody has explained as to how the game is played, what the figures 2 and /or 3 indicate and what is meant by the next expression "open to close". Unless these essentials are explained and interlinked with the gaming prenalised by the Act, the charge cannot be said to have been established. As the evidence suffers from this initial gross infirmity, the conviction will have to be set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence is set aside. The accused is acquitted. Bail bond cancelled. Fine, if paid, to be refunded. -----