Skip to content


Sita Ram and ors. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923All597; 75Ind.Cas.358
AppellantSita Ram and ors.
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredLachchi Ram v. Emperor
Excerpt:
public gambling act (iii of 1867), sections 4, 5, 6 - police raid--gaming going on--instruments of gaming found--common gaming house, presumption as to--direct evidence, whether necessary. - - 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......and instruments of gaming were found. the warrant had been duly obtained, the presumtion 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 65 ind. cas. 852 : 20 a.l.j. 218 : 23 cr. l.j. 196 : (1922) a.i.r. (a.) 61, 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 againt the conviction of the applicants under Section 4 of the Gambling Act. The Police made a raid on the house of one Surja, a gaming was going on, the accused, were found present and instruments of gaming were found. The warrant had been duly obtained, the presumtion 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 65 Ind. Cas. 852 : 20 A.L.J. 218 : 23 Cr. L.J. 196 : (1922) A.I.R. (A.) 61, 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 //