1. Speaking for myself I cannot bring myself to hold that a telegram, for example, announcing the happening or not happening of an event upon which wagers have previously been made can possibly be an instrument of gaming, i.e., an article used either as the subject or the means of wagering. Again, I cannot believe that upon exhaustive and correct logical analysis such pieces of paper as brokers may carry with them for the purpose of recording a transaction between their clients could be brought within the definition of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, as instruments of gaming or wagering. There is, however, a considerable body of case-law the other way and the learned Magistrate and the Judge below have found as a fact, no doubt, much influenced by those authorities, that certain papers in this case were instruments of gaming. If I were to press my own doubts, it would probably mean that we should have to refer the case to a Full Bench and that I should certainly not feel disposed to do, sitting in criminal revision in a case of this kind, where I am satisfied that no substantial injustice has been done and that whatever technical difficulties may be thrown in the way of the application of the Act by its peculiar language, the very evil which the Act meant to cure existed in this case and has been struck at by the decision which we are called upon to revise.
2. I am, therefore, prepared to agree with my learned brother who, I understand, does not share my doubts to the same extent as to the theoretical correctness of the decision of the Courts below that this is not a proper case for us to interfere with upon revision.
3. I would, therefore, reject the applicant's application and confirm the conviction and sentence.
4. I agree with my learned brother. In this case we should not interfere in revision with the decision of the Court below.