Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Babilal Balwant - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Application for Revision No. 202 of 1915
Judge
Reported inAIR1915Bom123; (1915)17BOMLR1078
AppellantEmperor
RespondentBabilal Balwant
Excerpt:
bombay prevention of gambling act (bom. act iv of 1887), section 10-approvers-indemnity-accused not to be used as approvers.;section 10 of the bombay prevention of gambling act (bom. act iv of 1887) does not enable a trying magistrate to examine any of the accused persons, while he is still in the position of an accused person and has obtained no order of discharge or acquittal. - .....magistrate in examining two of the accused persons, while they were still in the position of accused persons and had obtained no order of discharge or acquittal, committed an irregularity. his action is not to be justified under section 10 of the bombay prevention of gambling act. the statements of these two accused persons were, therefore, inadmissible in evidence, and if those statements are discarded from the record, there is nothing in evidence which, despite the presumptions arising under sections 5 and 7 of the act, would warrant the conviction of this applicant. for those presumptions in this particular case are weakened by the circumstance that the gambling was taking place not in a close room, but in an open shed.2. the rule, therefore, must be made absolute, the fine, if.....
Judgment:

1. In this case the learned Magistrate in examining two of the accused persons, while they were still in the position of accused persons and had obtained no order of discharge or acquittal, committed an irregularity. His action is not to be justified under Section 10 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. The statements of these two accused persons were, therefore, inadmissible in evidence, and if those statements are discarded from the record, there is nothing in evidence which, despite the presumptions arising under Sections 5 and 7 of the Act, would warrant the conviction of this applicant. For those presumptions in this particular case are weakened by the circumstance that the gambling was taking place not in a close room, but in an open shed.

2. The rule, therefore, must be made absolute, the fine, if paid, being refunded.


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