JUDGMENT 1. - It is unfortunate but true that even rich person, like hotel owners, run gambling houses in hotels at places like Pilibanga which is famous for old "Hadappa-Mohanjodro" civilisation of India and quite a good number of tourists visit it. 2. Gangaram Yadav is a person who runs a hotel at Pilibanga. It is alleged that the S.P. of Hanumangarh received an information on 10.3.1998 that Gangaram was running a gambiing house in a room in his hotel. The S.P. was satisfied with the secret information. Warrant was issued and Surendra Singh, Circle Inspector, was sent to take search. The Circle Inspector Surendra Singh alongwith some police officials went to the hotel and found that the accused petitioners were gambling with cards for money. They were all taken in custody alongwith an amount of Rs. 1,61,710/-. Complaint was submitted before the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Learned Magistrate read over accusation orally to all the petitioners. The petitioners themselves moved an application in writing on 9.6.1998 that they plead guilty to the accusation. Consequently, the learned Magistrate passed a sentence of one month simple imprisonment on each of them. They preferred appeal before the learned Sessions Judge who dismissed the same. The petitioners are presently serving out their sentence in District Jail Hanumangarh. This revision petition has been preferred on their behalf. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned P.P. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners first submitted that the accusation was not read over to the petitioners but it may be stated that this argument is baseless because the order of learned Magistrate mentions that the accusation was read over to the petitioners orally. Learned Sessions Judge has confirmed it. The appeal could be entertained only with regard to legality of sentence. Learned Sessions Judge found that there was no illegality as per Section 375 Cr.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that in the circumstances of this case sentence of one month is excessive and the petitioners may be awarded the sentence which they have already undergone. I have seen the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949. The maximum sentence cannot exceed six months. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that in the circumstances of this case sentence of one month is excessive and the petitioners may be awarded the sentence which they have already undergone. I have seen the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949. The maximum sentence cannot exceed six months. In my view the sentence should be such which may not only be a lesson to an accused so that he may not repeat the offence but should also give lesson to others. As stated above, Pilibanga is a place of tourist importance and if hotels are used as gambling places, definitely it will bring a bad name not only to the place but in eyes of the tourists who come there. Looking to all the facts and circumstances the sentence of one month appears to the excessive and it should be reduced to 8 days.Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The sentence is reduced from one month to the period of 8 (eight) days.Revision Partly Allowed. *******