Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Manilal Mohanlal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Criminal Application for Revision No. 34 of 1912
Judge
Reported in(1912)14BOMLR499
AppellantEmperor
RespondentManilal Mohanlal
Excerpt:
district police act (bombay act iv of 1890), sections 3 61 (i)-street-gambling in street.;the definition of the word ' street' in section 3(e) of the bombay district police act, 1890, is inclusive in its terms. the expression 'accessible to the public' means that any member of the public as such member of the public, has access to the and ' access ' means unimpeded entrance upon the land. - .....remand the case for disposal on the evidence with reference to the observations in this judgment. both sides to be at liberty to adduce fresh evidence with a view to showing whether or not the land in question is accessible to the public within the meaning of the definition quoted.
Judgment:

Batchelor, J.

1. This is an application for the revision of an order passed by the learned First Class Magistrate of Ahmedabad who found the accused persons guilty of assembling for the purpose of wagering in a street and sentenced them to the payment of a fine. The only question involved in the application is whether the piece of land upon which the accused persons were assembled is a street within the meaning of the definition in Clause (e) of Section 3 of the Bombay District Police Act IV of 1890. That definition is inclusive in its terms, and ' street' is said to include, among other things, any road or square, court, alley or passage accessible to the public. That this place is a square or a court within the meaning of the definition is not denied. What is denied is that it is accessible to the public. The only question, therefore, at issue is whether this place is or is not accessible to the public; by that, as it appears to me, is meant whether any member of the public as such member of the public, has access to this land: and by ' access to ' would ordinarily be understood unimpeded entrance upon the land. Whether the members of the public have such access or not is a question which must be answered upon the evidence. There is no evidence directed to this point, nor does the Magistrate appear to have directed his own attention in this way. The record, therefore, as it stands is not sufficient to enable us to decide the question arising. We reverse the conviction and sentence and remand the case for disposal on the evidence with reference to the observations in this judgment. Both sides to be at liberty to adduce fresh evidence with a view to showing whether or not the land in question is accessible to the public within the meaning of the definition quoted.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //