Skip to content


Crown Prosecutor Vs. Abdul Wahab and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject criminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1941Mad767
AppellantCrown Prosecutor
RespondentAbdul Wahab and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....against the acquittal of the respondents of an offence under section 37, clause (3), madras city police act. respondent 2 is the clerk of respondent 1 and the prosecution case is that on information that respondent 1 was receiving bets on horse races in the suparikunta in badai sahib street, p.w. 1, the sub-inspector sent p.w. 2 with a slip, ex. b-2, containing the names of horses and four annas. p.w. 2 handed over the slip and cash to respondent 1 and respondent 1 retained the cash and passed the slip to respondent 2. respondent 2 wrote something over the slips and gave them to respondent 1 and respondent 1 returned one slip, ex. a, to p.w. 2. the sub-inspector rushed to the place and ten betting slips, ex. b series, an acceptance form ex. c and fifteen annas in cash were found.....
Judgment:

Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. This is an appeal by the Provincial Government against the acquittal of the respondents of an offence under Section 37, Clause (3), Madras City Police Act. Respondent 2 is the clerk of respondent 1 and the prosecution case is that on information that respondent 1 was receiving bets on horse races in the Suparikunta in Badai Sahib Street, P.W. 1, the Sub-Inspector sent P.W. 2 with a slip, Ex. B-2, containing the names of horses and four annas. P.W. 2 handed over the slip and cash to respondent 1 and respondent 1 retained the cash and passed the slip to respondent 2. Respondent 2 wrote something over the slips and gave them to respondent 1 and respondent 1 returned one slip, Ex. A, to P.W. 2. The Sub-Inspector rushed to the place and ten betting slips, Ex. B series, an acceptance form Ex. c and fifteen annas in cash were found on respondent l. Respondent 2 had M.O. 2, the pencil, on him and Ex. A, the betting slip, was with P.W. 2. These facts are spoken to by P.Ws. 1 and 2 who were not seriously cross-examined, and the search witnesses could have been examined by the Magistrate if necessary. The evidence of D.ws. 1 and 2 is not entitled to any weight and on the evidence respondent 1 would be guilty under Section 87, Clause (3), Madras City Police Act. Respondent 2 was not found gaming as defined in the Act and he would not be guilty of the offence. The acquittal of respondent 1 is therefore set aside and he is convicted under Section 37, Clause (8), Madras City Police Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Bs. 5 with simple imprisonment for one week in default. The acquittal of respondent 2 is correct and the appeal is dismissed as against him.


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