Skip to content


In Re: Bondanthila Naranappayya and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1938)1MLJ509
AppellantIn Re: Bondanthila Naranappayya and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....section 5 of the gaming act cannot be accepted. the contents of the warrant show, as the learned joint magistrate has very properly observed that it was in fact issued under section 5 of the gaming act. i may remark that there is no prescribed form for warrants under section 5 of the gaming act, and moreover that section does not require the magistrate to record anywhere his reasons for believing any information the police may have given him. it does not even require him to record the fact that he has reason to believe that any place is used as a common gaming-house. all that it requires is that the magistrate shall have reason to believe...; if he has, he can issue his warrant, not in any particular form, but his warrant giving authority to a police officer to do certain things. the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Burn, J.

1. The contention that the Stationary Sub-Magistrate's warrant was not issued under Section 5 of the Gaming Act cannot be accepted. The contents of the warrant show, as the learned Joint Magistrate has very properly observed that it was in fact issued under Section 5 of the Gaming Act. I may remark that there is no prescribed form for warrants under Section 5 of the Gaming Act, and moreover that section does not require the Magistrate to record anywhere his reasons for believing any information the police may have given him. It does not even require him to record the fact that he has reason to believe that any place is used as a common gaming-house. All that it requires is that the Magistrate shall have reason to believe...; if he has, he can issue his warrant, not in any particular form, but his warrant giving authority to a Police Officer to do certain things. The requirements of Section 5 are here complied with, and the learned Joint Magistrate decided rightly that the presumption of Section 6 of the Act was available to the prosecution.

2. There was other evidence also on which the findings of the lower Courts could be based.

3. I can find no ground for interference in revision and 1 dismiss this petition.


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