JUDGMENT 1. - Justice should not be broken on the wheels of statistics. The tendency to exhibit higher disposal, by adopting short cut methods, against the settled law is to be deprecated. The instant case provides a typical example of "ignorance of settled law" or the disposal menis. It is hoped that there is no other questionable reason for such shop acquittal. 2. Before I proceed to discuss the merits, I would like to point out to the trial Magistrate the following important words of warning, caution and advice, which I was constrained to observed in Umed Singh v. Bahadur Singh and Ors., 1980 WLN 276 as under : "The Emblem or symbol of justice is Balance or Scales. A judge is required to maintain it even maticulsoly and not allow it to till on any consideration whatsoever. "Tilting of" balance of justice or the scales of justice" by weight of" coin is the very antithesis of a Judge" and "Justice" It is the worst "stigma" against a judge. For a Judge "independence" is "heart" and "integrity" is his "lungs". For a Judge; if quantity is lost, nothing is lost; if quality is lost something is lost but if independence", integrity or "impartiality" is lost, every thing is lost". 3. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Fatehpur acquitted the accused-respondents, Prahlad Ratanlal, Durga, Murlidhar and Babu Lal for offences under section 3/4 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance,solely on the ground that the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector was absent on 16th October, 1973. Sub-Divisional Magistrate observed that neither the complainant is present nor the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector is present and therefore, the accused are entitled to acquittal under section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. Section 247 of the un-amended Cr. P.C. reads as under:- "247. Non-appearance of complainant, - If the summons has been issued on complaint, and upon the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day. Provided that where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance, and proceed with case." 5. Provided that where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance, and proceed with case." 5. It is surprising that such decisions are given in spite of law laid down by this Court in Devi Singh and another v. Shiv Ram Singh, AIR 1960 Raj. 150 . This was also a case of police report under the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949 and a reference was made by Session Judge that the Magistrate should not have exempted the attendance of Shiv Ram Singh S.H.O., Bharatpur and since he was absent appropriate order should have been passed. 6. This Court considered what is the meaning of complaint under sec. 4(h) of the Cede of Criminal Procedure, and observed as under:- "An allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate with a view to his taking action under the Code, that some person, whether known or unknown has committed an offence, but it does not include the report of a police officer." "It is quite clear from his definition that a report of the police officer is not included within the meaning of the term complaint. In the present case, the Magistrate has taken cognizance on a report, made by a police officer, and therefore, it cannot be said that the case proceeded on a complaint. As pointed above, the learned Sessions Judge seems to be under the impression that simply because the offence was not cognizable, the Police officer could not make a report and the report made by him should not only be treated as a complaint. The learned Sessions Judge is clearly mistaken in his view that the Police can make a report only in a cognizable case and that it cannot make a report in any non-cognizable case." 7. I have been held that offences under section 3 and 4 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance are cognizable, according to Bombay High Courts view in Emperor v. Abas Bhai Abdul Hussain and Ors., AIR 1926 Bom. 195. and Calcutta High Courts view in Queen Emperor v. Deodha Singh and another, ILR 27 Cal. 144. But even if they are non-cognizable, it cannot be said merely on that basis that they would be covered by section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as it is not applicable on that account. 8. 195. and Calcutta High Courts view in Queen Emperor v. Deodha Singh and another, ILR 27 Cal. 144. But even if they are non-cognizable, it cannot be said merely on that basis that they would be covered by section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as it is not applicable on that account. 8. It was expressly hold that it is only when the Magistrate taken cognizance on the basis of complaint and not on a police report that provisions of section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be made applicable. 9. The above judgment of this Court along with the another judgment of this Court, in State of Rajasthan v. Mahmood Ghasi and another, AIR 1962 Raj 1 has been relied upon in State v. Vasant Tucaram Zantilc and others, AIR 1969 Com. 105. Similar view has been expressed by the Bombay High Court in State v. John Joseph DSouza, AIR 1956 Bom. 606 . The State v. Vasant Tukaram Zantic and Others (supra) was also under the Public Gambling Act, (1867). The Court observed as under:- "The above decisions lend support to the argument of Shri Gana that the order of acquittal passed in this case was erroneous. As stated already, the offence under Section 13 was a cognizable offence and was tried summarily, as a summons case. The charge-sheet was submitted by the police after necessary investigation, It may also be helpful to briefly refer to the provisions of Sections 154, 156, 157, 173 and 190 of the Code. Section 154 deals with information in cognizable cases. Under this section every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is required to be reduced to writing and be read over to the informant Section 156 enables a police officer to investigate any cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate. Section 157 provides that if, from information received or otherwise, a police officer has reason to suspect that commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report. Section 173 requires a police officer to forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, setting out the various particulars mentioned therein." 10. Section 173 requires a police officer to forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, setting out the various particulars mentioned therein." 10. It would thus be seen that neither there was any doubt nor there is any doubt about non-applicability of Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases of Gambling where police files a report, and cognizance is taken on the police report. 11. It appears that the learned Magistrate adopted a shortcut method of disposal of cases by recording absence of complainant where there was no complainant as such, and giving undue importance to absence of the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector, which was wholly unimportant, so far as acquittal or conviction is concerned. It is unfortunate that the learned counsel as well as the learned Magistrate both exhibited uttar ignorance about settled law by ordering such acquittal and obtaining such acquittal. 12. It should be remembered by all concerned that justice should never be allowed to be broken on the wheels of statistics and any attempt to adopt short-cut method of disposal by avoiding decision on merits on flimsy pretext, is a tendency which deserves to be discouraged and deprecated. 13. The learned Magistrate should have known that merit of a judicial officer lies not so much on exhibiting a statistical jugglery by such acquittals, adopting impermissible short-cut method of avoiding giving decision on merits of the case by ordering such an acquittal on account of absence of the prosecuting Sub-Inspector. The learned Magistrate acted in not haste in his anthusiasm to increase disposal of the cases, without taking pains to conduct the trial on merits. 14. The result is, that this appeal is accepted. The judgment of the learned Magistrate, is set aside, and the case is sent back to the trial court for proceeding according to law. The name of the accused respondent, Ratanlal was struck off by the order of this Court on June 1, 1979, and therefore, the trial court would now proceed against Prahlad, Durga, Murlidhar and Babulal only.Appeal Accepted. *******