JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal filed by the State with the leave of this Court against the i judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, dated August 31, 1974, by which Raj Kumar, respondent, was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, herein after referred to as the Ordinance. 2. The case for the prosecution briefly was that Sube Singh, Station House I Officer, Police Station, Jhunjhunu received a credible information from an informer I that Raj Kumar, respondent, was gambling (known as `GHADIOKI KHAI WALA SATTA) by accepting bets from other persons. Upon receiving this information, Sube Singh, S. H. O., decided to arrange a trap on December 19, 1972 and got a currency note of Re. 1/-, No. M. /82174678 D initialled by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri Ramjeewan and made it over to the informer with a direction that he should lay a bet with Raj Kumar, respondent, and gave a signal after his bet was accepted by the latter. The informer in pursuance of the direction given to him by Sube Singh, the Station House Officer went to Raj Kumar, respondent, gave him the initialled currency note for Re. 1/-, and lay a bet with him on figure 4. After laying the bet the informer gave a signal to the Station House Officer, Sube Singh and the Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri Ram Jeewan. The Deputy Superintendent and 9 the Station House Officer then rushed to the spot and got the person of the respondent searched by a constable. Upon search, the initialled currency-note was recovered from the possession of the respondent in the presence of Bajrang Lal and Sita Ram Motbirs. Along with the currency note of Re. 1/-, bearing the initials of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, other currency notes of the value of Rs. 69/-, and a copy having account of bets were also recovered from the pocket of his `Kurta'. Seizure memo Ex. P. 1 was prepared and after collecting other necessary evidence, the respondent was challaned under section 13 of the Ordinance in the Court of the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu. The learned Magistrate tried the respondent for the aforesaid offence of gambling and came to a conclusion upon evidence available on the record that the prosecution could not make out a case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Magistrate tried the respondent for the aforesaid offence of gambling and came to a conclusion upon evidence available on the record that the prosecution could not make out a case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore acquitted the respondent of the charge under section 13 of the Ordinance. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State E obtained leave to appeal to this Court and preferred this appeal. 3. I have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. Shivraj Behari Mathur, Public Prosecutor, for the State and Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar, learned counsel for Raj Kumar, respondent. It was urged by the Public Prosecutor that the learned Judicial Magistrate committed an error in acquitting the respondent of the charge under section 13 of the Ordinance merely on the ground that Bajrang Lal and Sita Ram Motbirs, in whose presence the recovery of initialled currency note of Re. 1/-. was alleged to have been made, turned hostile to the prosecution case and denied the factum of recovery of the note from the possession of the respondent. According to the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor, there is ample reliable evidence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri Ram Jeewan, and Sube Singh, Station House Officer and Dariyav Singh, L.C. in proof of the recovery of the initialled currency notes from the pocket of the `Kurta' of the respondent and this trust worthy evidence could not K be lightly brushed aside merely on the ground that they were witnesses of the Police Department. 4. Mr. Jagdep Dhankar, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that the punter in this case was not examined by the prosecution for reasons best known to it. He further submitted that in the absence of independent corroboration of the evidence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Station House Officer, and Dariyav Singh witnesses of the Police Department, no conviction of the respondent could safely be recorded, especially when the currency-note of Re. 1/-, was not initialled by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the presence of any Motbir, nor was any memo prepared to show that in fact the currency note was given to the informer by the Station House Officer after it was got initialled by him. 5. I have considered the rival contentions mentioned above. 1/-, was not initialled by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the presence of any Motbir, nor was any memo prepared to show that in fact the currency note was given to the informer by the Station House Officer after it was got initialled by him. 5. I have considered the rival contentions mentioned above. The case for the prosecution was that the respondent was found gambling in `GHADIO KI KHAI WALA SATTA. The word `Gambling' as defined in clause 2 of the ordinance includes wagering or betting but does not include a lottery. It was the duty of the prosecution to bring cogent and reliable evidence on the record to show that person were aying bets with the respondent and the latter was accepting them for gambling in`GHADIO KI KHAI WALA SATTA'. Curiously enough, no evidence has been brought on the record to prove this fact of gambling. As stated earlier, even Dariyav Singh, who claimed to have been present at the time when initialled currency note was handed over to the respondent by the informer, did not say anything about the conversation which took place between the respondent and the informer at the relevant time. Consequently, upon careful review of the entire evidence led by the prosecution, I am of the view that there is no proof worth the name that the respondent was found gambling in this case. 6. Apart from this, there are other serious infirmities in the prosecution case. As stated earlier, the name of the punter was not disclosed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Station House Officer. The punter was not even examined at the trial. No memo was prepared by Station House Officer or the Deputy Superintendent of Police showing that the punter produced the currency-note of Re. 1 /- before them and the Deputy Superintendent of Police returned the currency-note to the punter after putting his initials there to. Even the number of the initialled currency-note was not noted down in the memo or diary by the police in the presence of Motbirs. Apart from this, the two independent Motbirs, namely, Bajrang Lal and Sita Ram denied the recovery of the initialled currency note from the possession of the respondent in their presence. Even the number of the initialled currency-note was not noted down in the memo or diary by the police in the presence of Motbirs. Apart from this, the two independent Motbirs, namely, Bajrang Lal and Sita Ram denied the recovery of the initialled currency note from the possession of the respondent in their presence. In this state of affairs, it is very difficult for me to hold that the learned Judicial Magistrate was not justified in acquitting the respondent of the charge under section 13 of the ordinance. 7. Consequently, I find no substantial ground or compelling reasons for setting aside the acquittal of the respondent. The appeal filed by the State has no force and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- K.D. Sharma, Actg. C.J. *******