Section 13: Indemnification of persons concerned who are examined as witnesses.

Any person who is concerned in gaming contrary to the provisions of this Act, and who is examined as a witness before a magistrate on the trial of any person for a breach of any of the provisions of this Act and who upon such examination, makes true and faithful discovery to the best of his knowledge of all things as to which he is so examined, shall thereupon receive from the said magistrate a certificate in writing to that effect and shall be freed from any prosecution under this Act for any thing previously done in respect of that particular gaming.

Explained:

Section 13 of the Telangana Gaming Act, 1974 provides protection to a person involved in unlawful gaming when that person becomes a witness in a gaming prosecution and gives a truthful account of the facts within his knowledge. The provision is intended to assist the Magistrate and prosecution in establishing the circumstances surrounding a particular gaming activity.

Protection to a Person Who Gives Evidence

Under Section 13, a person who has been concerned in gaming contrary to the Act may be examined as a witness before a Magistrate during the trial of another person for violating the Act. If the witness makes a true and faithful discovery, to the best of his knowledge, of all matters about which he is examined, the Magistrate may issue a written certificate confirming this.

Once such a certificate is issued, the person receives protection from prosecution under the Gaming Act for acts previously committed in relation to that particular gaming.

Important Judicial Interpretation

In Desai Digambarrao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1978), the Andhra Pradesh High Court considered Section 13 directly. Several persons were prosecuted after a raid at Hotel Navrang, Bodhan. Two accused, who had admitted the offence, were sought to be examined as witnesses under Section 13.

The High Court held that Section 13 does not permit an accused who is still facing trial to be examined as a witness in his own trial. The provision contemplates a person concerned in gaming being examined as a witness in the trial of another person. The Court therefore set aside the Magistrate’s order permitting the two accused to be examined as prosecution witnesses.

The Court also referred to Queen-Empress v. Hussein Haji and Bahilal Balwant v. Emperor, which supported the principle that a person cannot simultaneously remain an accused and be treated as a witness while still facing trial.

Key Point

Section 13 is therefore an immunity/indemnification provision, but it is not an automatic pardon for every person involved in gaming. The statutory conditions must be satisfied, including truthful disclosure and examination as a witness in the trial of another person.