Emperor Vs. Chennappa Basappa - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
prevention of gambling act (bom. act iv of 1887), section 12 - public place--swami's math.;the accused, were found playing for money with cards in a math, which was enclosed in a compound wall and off the highway. it was managed by a swami of the lingayet community and was open to all lingayets and to other castes, subject to certain restrictions. the swami could, if he chose, keep the people out. under these circumstances, the accused were convicted of an offence punishable under section 12 of the prevention of gambling act, 1887 :-;setting aside the convictions and sentences, that the 'math' could not be regarded as a public place within the meaning of the prevention of gambling act, 1887. - section 3: [s.b. mhase, d.s. bhosale & a.s. oka, jj] offences of atrocities - complaint under held, merely because the caste of the accused is not mentioned in the fir stating whether he belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, it cannot be a ground for quashing the complaint. after ascertaining the facts during he course of investigation it is always open to the investigating officer to record tht the accused either belongs to or does not belongs to schedule caste or scheduled tribe. after final opinion is formed, it is open to the court to either accept the same or take cognizance. even if the charge sheet is filed at the time of consideration of the charge, it si open to the accused to bring to the notice of the court that the materials do not show that the accused does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. even if charge is framed at the time of trial materials can be placed to show that the accused either belongs to or does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. even if charge is frame d at the time of trial materials can be placed to show that the accused either belongs to or does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. it is not a requirement und4r section 3 of the atrocities act that the complainant should disclose the caste of the accused in the complaint. in other words, if there is no mention of the caste of the accused in the fir, that cannot be a ground for either not registering the offence under section 3 of the act or for quashing such complaint1. we agree with the learned district magistrate that the math in which the card-playing in this case was carried on cannot be regarded as a public place within the meaning of the bombay prevention of gambling act iv of 1887. we must, therefore, set aside the convictions of the accused and direct their acquittal and discharge. the fines, if paid by them, should be refunded to them.