Skip to content


Queen-empress Vs. Thandavarayudu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1891)ILR14Mad364
AppellantQueen-empress
RespondentThandavarayudu
Excerpt:
penal code - act xlv of 1860, sections 109, 209--nuisance--keeping a gaming house--abetment. - - the evidence for the prosecution, which both the lower courts considered reliable, went to show that the neighbours have been greatly annoyed by the noise which the gamblers frequenting petitioner's house make, that the gamblers throw the ends of cheroots upon the houses, quarrel and fight in the public street, and that people are afraid to go out at night or to pass the house for fear of being assaulted......the neighbours have been greatly annoyed by the noise which the gamblers frequenting petitioner's house make, that the gamblers throw the ends of cheroots upon the houses, quarrel and fight in the public street, and that people are afraid to go out at night or to pass the house for fear of being assaulted.3. although there is no evidence, that the petitioner did, as the sub-magistrate states, engage the house for the purpose of letting it out as a gambling house, the evidence does warrant the finding that petitioner has permitted crowds of disorderly persons to make use of the house, both by day and night, for gambling, and that his doing so has caused considerable annoyance to the public. it is a significant fact that the gambling and annoyance caused as soon as the present prosecution.....
Judgment:

1. The petitioner has been found guilty of abetting a public nuisance (Sections 290 and 109 of the Penal Code) in that he was the lessee of a house, which he permitted to be used as a common gaming house; whereby nuisance, danger, and annoyance have been caused to the residents in the neighbourhood.

2. The mere act of gambling in a private house is not per se a public nuisance (see Weir, page 146), but that is not the offence charged or found. The evidence for the prosecution, which both the lower Courts considered reliable, went to show that the neighbours have been greatly annoyed by the noise which the gamblers frequenting petitioner's house make, that the gamblers throw the ends of cheroots upon the houses, quarrel and fight in the public street, and that people are afraid to go out at night or to pass the house for fear of being assaulted.

3. Although there is no evidence, that the petitioner did, as the Sub-Magistrate states, engage the house for the purpose of letting it out as a gambling house, the evidence does warrant the finding that petitioner has permitted crowds of disorderly persons to make use of the house, both by day and night, for gambling, and that his doing so has caused considerable annoyance to the public. It is a significant fact that the gambling and annoyance caused as soon as the present prosecution was instituted.

4. The absence of the petitioner from the town on a certain date will not exonerate him, as the nuisance is shown to have been continuous for some three months.

5. The conviction must be upheld and the petition dismissed.


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