Skip to content


In Re: C. Raghava Variar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCr. Revn. Case No. 697 of 1950, (Case Referred No. 53 of 1950)
Judge
Reported inAIR1951Mad885; (1951)1MLJ700
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 423 and 439; Madras Gaming Act, 1930 - Sections 8 and 9
AppellantIn Re: C. Raghava Variar and anr.
Appellant AdvocateS. Venkatachala Sastri, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateThe Public Prosecutor, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....own house& he permitted the gaming therein, obviously onthe ground that it was not proved to be a common gaming house, 'it follows that all the accusedshould also have been acquitted of the offence under section 9, which will apply only to gaming in a common gaming house''. there has been also noappeal against the acquittal of accused 1 regarding section 8 by the state. so, the reference by theses. j., north malabar, is right. when the trunkis cut & falls, the branches will fall by themselves.though accused 3 & 4 did not appeal, & are notrepresented before me by any counsel (possiblydue to poverty, ignorance of law, despair, etc.)i see no reason why i should reject the reference as regards them alone when there is no difference between their case & the case of accused1 & 2, in law & in.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.

1. As accused 1 was acquitted by theAppellate Ct. of the offence Under Section 8, Madras Gaming Act, though it was admittedly his own house& he permitted the gaming therein, obviously onthe ground that it was not proved to be a common gaming house, 'it follows that all the accusedshould also have been acquitted of the offence Under Section 9, which will apply only to gaming in a common gaming house''. There has been also noappeal against the acquittal of accused 1 regarding Section 8 by the State. So, the reference by theSes. J., North Malabar, is right. When the trunkis cut & falls, the branches will fall by themselves.Though accused 3 & 4 did not appeal, & are notrepresented before me by any counsel (possiblydue to poverty, ignorance of law, despair, etc.)I see no reason why I should reject the reference as regards them alone when there is no difference between their case & the case of accused1 & 2, in law & in fact, & when Order 41, Rule 33,Civil P. C., allows a Ct. to interfere in the interestsof justice for the benefit of even 'ex parte' defts.who have not appealed, & the powers of a criminalCt. of justice, in revn., are, in this respect, evenwider. I accept the reference of the Ses. J., NorthMalabar, in full & set aside the convictions &sentences; of Accused 1 to Accused 4 Under Section 9, acquitthem of that offence, & order the fines, if paid,to be refunded.


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