Skip to content


Amulya Dhone Ghose Vs. Ram Sundar Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivi
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1938Cal422
AppellantAmulya Dhone Ghose
RespondentRam Sundar Singh
Excerpt:
- .....points to the conclusion that the petitioner was, when arrested, engaged either in taking or in making bets, that is to say, either he or the other person concerned was what might be described as a 'street book-maker'. now the section of the gambling act under which the petitioner has been convicted renders liable to fine any person playing for money in any public street, etc., any game not being a game of mere skill, by use of instruments of gaming. apparently, the prosecution theory is that the two counterfoil receipts bearing names of certain horses on which bets had apparently been made which were found, in the possession of the petitioner, were instruments of gaming within the meaning of the section. i am very doubtful whether this view is a sound one, but in any case having.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Patterson, J.

1. This rule is directed against the conviction of the petitioner under Section 11 of Act 2 of 1867. The charge against the petitioner was 'gambling for gain of money by making illegal bets on race-horses'. The evidence is purely circumstantial and points to the conclusion that the petitioner was, when arrested, engaged either in taking or in making bets, that is to say, either he or the other person concerned was what might be described as a 'street book-maker'. Now the section of the Gambling Act under which the petitioner has been convicted renders liable to fine any person playing for money in any public street, etc., any game not being a game of mere skill, by use of instruments of gaming. Apparently, the prosecution theory is that the two counterfoil receipts bearing names of certain horses on which bets had apparently been made which were found, in the possession of the petitioner, were instruments of gaming within the meaning of the section. I am very doubtful whether this view is a sound one, but in any case having regard to the doubt which exists as to what the petitioner was really doing at the time of his arrest I am clearly of opinion that the conviction cannot be sustained. The rule is made absolute, the conviction and sentence are set aside, and the petitioner is acquitted. The fine, if paid, will be refunded.


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