Skip to content


Ganeshi Lal and anr. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923All88; 71Ind.Cas.507
AppellantGaneshi Lal and anr.
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 239 - public gambling act (iii of 1867), sections 3, 4, offences under--same transaction. - interpretation of statutes definition clause: [markandey katju & h.l. dattu, jj] meaning given to an expression in one statute cannot be applied to another statute......j.1. the main point taken in these revisions is, that the trial of the owner or keeper of a common gaming house, under section 3 of act iii of 1867, together with the trial of persons found gaming or present for the purpose of gaming in such house under section 4, in one trial, is illegal. it is always necessary to justify a joint trial and to point out the provisions under which it can be held. the separate trial is the rule, the joint trial is the exception, and this trial can only be justified if the provisions of section 239 of the criminal procedure code have application. it must be found that tie persons tried together were accused of different offences committed in the same transaction. the words 'same transaction' are not de-lined in the code. it would be hardly possible to.....
Judgment:

Stuart, J.

1. The main point taken in these revisions is, that the trial of the owner or keeper of a common gaming house, under Section 3 of Act III of 1867, together with the trial of persons found gaming or present for the purpose of gaming in such house under Section 4, in one trial, is illegal. It is always necessary to justify a joint trial and to point out the provisions under which it can be held. The separate trial is the rule, the joint trial is the exception, and this trial can only be justified if the provisions of Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code have application. It must be found that tie persons tried together were accused of different offences committed in the same transaction. The words 'same transaction' are not de-lined in the Code. It would be hardly possible to define them satisfactorily, and, in arriving at what is the meaning of those words, a Court has to look for guidance to the illustrations to Section 235 remembering that those illustrations are not exhaustive. But, in this particular instance, it appears to me that there is no real difficulty. The two offences charged are the complements of one another. It is not easy to see how one could exist without the other. It would be hard to conceive how there could be a common gaming house if no persons went there for the purpose of gaming. In these circumstances, the offence of keeping the gaming house and the offence of using it, both appear to me to be offences committed in. the same transaction. Apart from this point, there is nothing brought out in the applications in revision on which I need comment. But as Ganeshi Lal and Kalka Prasad were sentenced only to one month's rigorous imprisonment and were released on bail after they had served several days, it does not seem to me desirable to send them back to prison to serve a few extra days. I accordingly, in the case of Ganeshi Inland Kalka Prasad, reduce the sentences to the period of imprisonment already undergone and cancel the bail-bonds. The remaining convictions and sectences will stand.


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