Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.
1. As accused 1 was acquitted by theAppellate Ct. of the offence Under Section 8, Madras Gaming Act, though it was admittedly his own house& he permitted the gaming therein, obviously onthe ground that it was not proved to be a common gaming house, 'it follows that all the accusedshould also have been acquitted of the offence Under Section 9, which will apply only to gaming in a common gaming house''. There has been also noappeal against the acquittal of accused 1 regarding Section 8 by the State. So, the reference by theSes. J., North Malabar, is right. When the trunkis cut & falls, the branches will fall by themselves.Though accused 3 & 4 did not appeal, & are notrepresented before me by any counsel (possiblydue to poverty, ignorance of law, despair, etc.)I see no reason why I should reject the reference as regards them alone when there is no difference between their case & the case of accused1 & 2, in law & in fact, & when Order 41, Rule 33,Civil P. C., allows a Ct. to interfere in the interestsof justice for the benefit of even 'ex parte' defts.who have not appealed, & the powers of a criminalCt. of justice, in revn., are, in this respect, evenwider. I accept the reference of the Ses. J., NorthMalabar, in full & set aside the convictions &sentences; of Accused 1 to Accused 4 Under Section 9, acquitthem of that offence, & order the fines, if paid,to be refunded.