Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Ahmad Khan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1912)ILR34All96
AppellantEmperor
RespondentAhmad Khan
Excerpt:
act no. iii of 1867 (public gambling act) section 12 - 'mere game of skill'--game of chance. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the..........which governs the case now before us. we are by no means sure that the game which the calcutta high court judges had under consideration was precisely the same as is described by the learned sessions judge of cawnpore. we are, of course, only concerned with the game described by the latter. from the description so given we find ourselves unable to interfere. we hold that the game described by the learned sessions judge of cawnpore is not a game of mere skill. the application is dismissed.
Judgment:

George Knox and Griffin, JJ.

1. We have carefully considered the description given of the game which both the courts below held to be not a game of mere skill. The learned Counsel for the applicant who asks us to interfere with the view taken by these courts, has referred us to a Calcutta ruling in Criminal Revision No. 771 of 1907 Hari Singh v. King-Emperor. There is a material difference between the words used in Section 10 of the Bengal Public Gambling Act and Section 12 of Act No. III of 1867, which is the Act which governs the case now before us. We are by no means sure that the game which the Calcutta High Court Judges had under consideration was precisely the same as is described by the learned Sessions Judge of Cawnpore. We are, of course, only concerned with the game described by the latter. From the description so given we find ourselves unable to interfere. We hold that the game described by the learned Sessions Judge of Cawnpore is not a game of mere skill. The application is dismissed.


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