Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 341 (MP)

State of M. P. v. J. P. Yadav

2001-04-17

S.P.KHARE

body2001
JUDGMENT The State has filed this revision against the order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balaghat under section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing that the proceedings against the respondents under section 13 Public Gambling Act be stopped. The respondents are the clerks and peons working in the District Civil Court of Balaghat. They were charge-sheeted under section 13 of the Public Gambling Act on the allegation that they were found gaming in the Court premises. At the stage of charge, the learned CJM was persuaded to hold that the terrace of the Court building was not a public place, and therefore any gambling going on there would not constitute an offence under section 13 of the Public Gambling Act. The learned Magistrate therefore stopped the proceedings under section 258 CrPC and discharged the respondents. The learned counsel for the State criticised the order contending that the Court premises were very much a public place and there was no logic behind the finding that the terrace of the Court building was not such a place. The learned counsel for the respondents repeated the arguments that the terrace of the Court building was not a public place because public had no right of entry to it. We find the view of the learned Magistrate to be wholly untenable. No part of the Court building can be said to be private property. The terrace of the Court will be as much a public place as its rooms and corridors. We do not see any scope for argument that the terrace of the Court building is not a public place. On the question in issue the following passage from 'Sami & Aiyer's Law and Practice of Gambling in India (fifth edition page 151), as cited in 1970 MPLJ 29 (S.K. Kallo v. State of M.P.) may be reproduced with advantage : "It is not easy to define what is a public place within the meaning of statutes against gaming. On the question in issue the following passage from 'Sami & Aiyer's Law and Practice of Gambling in India (fifth edition page 151), as cited in 1970 MPLJ 29 (S.K. Kallo v. State of M.P.) may be reproduced with advantage : "It is not easy to define what is a public place within the meaning of statutes against gaming. It has been defined as any house to which all who wish can go night or day and indulge in gaming; any place which for the time is made public by the assemblage of people; a place that is visited by many persons and usually accessible to the neighbouring public; a place to which people are at the time privileged to resort without invitation; a place which is, in point of fact, 'public' as distinguished from 'private'. A place to be public must be so in one or two ways, that is, it must be of a public nature, public per se or made public at the time by force of circumstances. The term does not necessarily mean a place devoted solely to the uses of public, or which is always public, for a place may be public at some time and private at others; it may be public during some hours of the day and private during other hours. A private place may become public by being put to public use." Thus even private buildings may become public by the mode of its use, i.e. by making it accessible to the public. But there are places which are public by their very nature, that is to say, public per se. And a Court building falls in this category. The learned lower Court fell into an error in holding otherwise. The view taken by the learned Magistrate being unsustainable, the impugned order is set aside. The case is sent back to the trial Court to proceed with the case in the light of the above observations. The accused-respondents are directed to appear before the trial Court on 17.5.2001. The record of the case be returned back forthwith.