JUDGMENT 1. - These petitions are directed against the revisonal judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Merta dated 16.1.1990 whereby he upheld the conviction of the petitioners under Secs.3 & 4 of the Rajasthan Gambling Ordinance, 1949 and sentence of a fine of Rs. 100/- 2. Mr. Kumbhat and Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitoners contended that the Trial Court has erred in recording the conviction of the petitioners as Shri Surja Ram who had raided the house had not been examined. Their further contention was that the motbirs have also not been examined in the case. They also contended that the search warrant issued by the Magistrate has not been proved by any evidence on record. 3. Leanred RR contended that the petitions are entertain able as they are revision petition in the garb of misc. petitions and are barred under Sec.397(3) Cr.RC. His submission was that the judgment of the Trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and as the judgment has been upheld by the revisional Court this Court should not reappraise the evidence of the case. 4. I have given the matter my thoughtful consideration. There is merit in the objection raised by the PR The petitioners having availed the opportunity of filing revision before the Sessions Judge against the judgment of the Trial Court cannot be permitted to file second revision petition in the garb of misc. petition. The jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.RC. can be invoked to prevent abuse of the process or to secure ends of justice. The instant case has been decided on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution. The learned Magistrate after discussing the evidence has recorded the conviction of the petitioners. The learned Sessions Judge has agreed with the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court. In the misc. petition this Court cannot be justified in reappraising the evidence. 5. Even on merits there is no cause to interfere with the order. As to the non-examination of Surja Ram who has led the raiding party it is noticed that he had expired before the prosecution evidence was closed. It was therefore not possible for the prosecution of examine Surja Ram. 6. A reading of the seizure memo Ex. P-1 shows tht besides the police officials and two Motbirs, Shri Rajendra Mishra the then tehsildar, Merta was also present at the time of raid. It was therefore not possible for the prosecution of examine Surja Ram. 6. A reading of the seizure memo Ex. P-1 shows tht besides the police officials and two Motbirs, Shri Rajendra Mishra the then tehsildar, Merta was also present at the time of raid. His signature finds place in the Memo Ex.P-1. He has been examined the Court. He has full supported the testimony of the police officials. There is no cause to disbelieve Rajendar Mishra. So also the testimony of Narayan Das, Bannaram, Birbal Ram cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are police official. 7. The Magistrate, who has issued the Search Warrant himself tried the case. There was no need to examine any person to prove the signature of the Magistrate on the Search Warrant. 8. By the testimony of the witnesses, it is amply proved that the petitioners were found playing with cards and money. "Common gaming house" has been defined in Sec.2(4) (ii) as a house in which instruments of gaming are kept or used for the profit or gain by the person owning, occupying using or keeping any such instruments. It is thus obvious that is not necessary that the house must be owned by the person who is present there. Mere occupying by the person and keeping the instruments of gaming will be an offence under Sec.3 of the Raj. Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949. The petitioners were found in the Gaming House while playing with cards and money, and therefore, they have been rightly convicted under Sec.4 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949. 9. There is no merit in these petitions. They are dismissed. *******