1. This is an application in revision by one Chiranji Lal who has been convicted by a First Class Magistrate in a summary trial of an offence under Section 3, Gambling Act. From the judgment of the learned trying Magistrate which is the only record in the case, it appears that the charge against the applicant was that ha was keeping his shop as a gaming house for satta gambling. There is nothing in the judgment of the learned Magistrate to show what constituted the alleged gambling and what was the commodity in respect of which the gambling was going on. Several points of fact and law have been taken by the learned Counsel for the applicant in challenging the conviction; but the most important one which is sufficient for deciding this application is that it was incumbent for the prosecution under the law to prove by definite evidence the commodity in respect of which the alleged satta gambling was going on. The vague and general statement by the prosecution witnesses that satta gambling was going on proved nothing in law. The argument is obviously sound and must prevail. It is fully supported by several decisions of this Court, e.g. Criminal Revision No. 263 of Shyam Sunder v. Emperor Cri. Revn. No. 263 of 1932, Criminal Revision No. 173 of Shyam Sunder v. Emperor Cri. Revn. No. 173 of 1931 and Criminal Revision No. 699 of Sarnimal v. Emperor Cri. Revn. No. 699 of 1925. It appears that these cases have not been reported and that accounts for the lower Courts going wrong in this matter. The legal position is, however, perfectly clear and I, therefore, allow the application and set aside the conviction and sentence of the applicant. The fine, if any, paid by him will be refunded.