Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Sita Ram and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1923)ILR45All671
AppellantEmperor
RespondentSita Ram and ors.
Excerpt:
act no. iii of 1867 (public gambling act), sections 4, 5 and 6 - common gaming house--house searched under a warrant duly issued--presumption. - - i have examined that judgment and find that it contains no reference to section 6. here the presumption contained in that section was clearly applicable and dispensed with the necessity of direct evidence that a commission was being taken by the keeper of the house......soorja. gaming was going on, the accused were found present and instruments of gaming were found. the warrant had been duly obtained, the presumption contained in section 6 of the gambling act therefore applied. it has been suggested, on the authority of the case of lachchi ram v. emperor (1922) 20 a.l.j. 218 that it was necessary for the police to give direct evidence that the gambling was being carried on for the profit of the keeper of the house. i have examined that judgment and find that it contains no reference to section 6. here the presumption contained in that section was clearly applicable and dispensed with the necessity of direct evidence that a commission was being taken by the keeper of the house. the revision accordingly fails and i dismiss it.
Judgment:

Daniels, J.

1. This is an application in revision against the conviction of the applicants under Section 4 of the Gambling Act. The police made a raid on the house of one Soorja. Gaming was going on, the accused were found present and instruments of gaming were found. The warrant had been duly obtained, the presumption contained in Section 6 of the Gambling Act therefore applied. It has been suggested, on the authority of the case of Lachchi Ram v. Emperor (1922) 20 A.L.J. 218 that it was necessary for the police to give direct evidence that the gambling was being carried on for the profit of the keeper of the house. I have examined that judgment and find that it contains no reference to Section 6. Here the presumption contained in that section was clearly applicable and dispensed with the necessity of direct evidence that a commission was being taken by the keeper of the house. The revision accordingly fails and I dismiss it.


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