Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: bombay prevention of gambling act 1887 Page 1 of about 167 results (0.028 seconds)

Apr 04 1978 (SC)

Janardhan Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1978SC1234; (1978)2SCC465; [1978]3SCR586

..... gambling act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months and a fine of rs. 400 ..... the additional sessions judge of nagpur upholding the conviction of the revision petitioner. the trial court convicted appellant janardhan of an offence under section 4 of the bombay prevention of gambling act, 1887, hereinafter referred to as the act, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two months and a fine of rs. 400/-, or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment ..... 1. this appeal by certificate granted by the bombay high court raises an interesting question of law as to the ambit, scope and interpretation of section 6 of the bombay prevention of gambling act, 1887 (act no. iv of 1887)(hereinafter referred to as the gambling act) read with the bombay police act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the police act).2. the appellant along with others was convicted under section 4 of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 1956 (HC)

State Vs. Gauri Kom Krishna Bhandari and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1957Bom66; (1956)58BOMLR1046; 1957CriLJ362; ILR1957Bom98

..... persons were arrested from the village on 27-8-1955. they were accused nos. 12 and 13.a complaint was lodged against the persons arrested for offence under the bombay prevention of gambling act, 1887. it was alleged that the first accused was the owner of the house which was raided and that she allowed her house to be used as a common gaming house ..... passed by the judicial magistrate, first class, karwar, in criminal case no. 982 of 1955. thirteen persons were tried by the learned magistrate for offences under ss. 4 and 5 bombay prevention of gambling act, 1887. the case for the prosecution was as follows; sub-inspector r. n. desai of ankola police station, haying received infer, mation that a house in the village of avarsa ..... before the sub-divisional magistrate. mr. jahagirdar says that these powers may be conferred under section 96, cri. p. c. and not under section 6, bombay prevention of gambling act.it is true that clause of section 6, bombay prevention if gambling act confers power upon an officer to seize all things which are, reasonably suspected to have been used or intended to be used for the purpose ..... 19a, sub-inspector desai had applied to the sub-divisional magistrate for the issue of a warrant requiring that all the powers under clauses (a) to (d), of section 6, bombay prevention of gambling act, be conferred upon him. but the sub-divisional magistrate ordered that a warrant be issued granting powers under clauses (a), (b) end (d) only. sub-inspector desai, however, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 1952 (HC)

The State Vs. Jayantilal Govinddas

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1953Bom82; (1952)54BOMLR790; ILR1953Bom91

..... sessions judge, ahmedabad, in favour of the original accused persons jayantilal govinddas and chimanlal vrijlal who were prosecuted for an offence under section 12, clause (a) of the bombay prevention of gambling act 1887 (bom. iv of 1887), and convicted and sentenced by the learned fifth additional city magistrate, ahmedabad.(2) shortly stated, the facts of the case which gave rise to this prosecution were as ..... recorded by accused no. 2 was found with accused no. 2. on these facts both the accused were prosecuted for an offence under 6. 12, clause (a) of the bombay prevention of gambling act, in the court of the fifth additional city magistrate, ahmedabad. the learned magistrate, on a careful consideration of the evidence of the punter and the 'panch' and also of the ..... court in its decision in -- 'emperor v. horrnazdyar irani', 50 bom lr 163 in which it was pointed out that for drawing a presumption under section 7 of the bombay prevention of gambling act it was not necessary that the things seized must be proved to be instruments of gaming. it was pointed out that it would be sufficient if there were reasonable grounds ..... and the order passed by the learned magistrate must be restored. both accused nos. 1 and 2 are convicted of an offence under section 12 clause (a) of the bombay prevention of gambling act, and each one of them is sentenced to suffer one month's rigorous imprisonment and pay a fire of rs. 200 or in default to suffer one month's further .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 09 1966 (HC)

The State of Gujarat Vs. Babusing Medasingh and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : AIR1967Guj282; 1967CriLJ1634; (1968)0GLR74

..... , (bom. 4 of 1887), as amended upto date, i.n. rama iyer, commissioner of ..... city magistrate, 10th court, ahmedabad, in summary case no. 541 of 1964, whereby the two respondents were acquitted of the charges under section 4 and 5 of the bombay prevention of gambling act, 1887. before this appeal could be heard, on 13th june 1965, respondent no. 1 (original accused no. 1) has died. his death certificate is produced and the ..... bombay prevention of gambling act. it was claimed that police inspector jadeja was authorized by general order by the police commissioner dated the 12th of january 1962 under section 6 of the bombay prevention of gambling act. it is exhibit 4 and is as follows:-'order under section 6 of the bombay prevention of gambling act. in exercise of the powers vested in me under section 6(1) of the bombay prevention of gambling act, 1887 ..... search is made and instrument of gaming are seized by a police officer armed with an order like exhibit 4, a presumption under section 7 of the bombay prevention of gambling act can arise?the learned magistrate then has reproduced section 6 and has made the following observations:-'now this provision of empowering sub inspector or any officer above .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 07 1957 (SC)

The State of Bombay Vs. Salat Pragji Karamsi

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1957SC517; 1957CriLJ884; [1957]1SCR745

..... that new authority.' 11. on november 28, 1950 the chief commissioner of kutch issued the following notification : 'in exercise of the powers vested in him under section 1 of the bombay prevention of gambling act, 1887 (iv of 1887) as applied to kutch by the kutch (application of laws) order, 1949 the chief commissioner has been pleased to order that all the provisions of the said ..... not have any operational effect on these various words which were used in the bombay act as modified and applied to kutch. 15. so understood, s. 1 of the bombay act would read as follows :- 'this act may be cited as the bombay prevention of gambling act, 1887. all or any of its provisions may be extended from time to time by the chief commissioner of kutch by an order ..... importance of the questions raised and implications of the judgment of the judicial commissioner. the respondent was convicted of an offence under s. 12(a) of the bombay prevention of gambling act (act iv of 1887 hereinafter termed the bombay act) as applied to kutch and was sentenced to a fine of rs. 50 or in default simple imprisonment from 15 days and forfeiture of the amounts recovered .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 02 1959 (HC)

Narayana Subraya Bhat and anr. Vs. State of Mysore

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1960Kant157; AIR1960Mys157; 1960CriLJ838; ILR1960KAR261; [1981]127ITR862(KAR); [1981]127ITR862(Karn)

..... a common gaming house; and having satisfied my self after enquiry that there are good grounds for such suspicion--these are by virtue of the bombay prevention of gambling act, 1887 as amended uptodate to charge and authorise you to enter with the assistance of such persons as may be found necessary, by night or ..... bom lr 548: (air 1939 bom 339) the high court observed:'the presumption under s. 7 of the bombay prevention of gambling act, 1887, that the house, room or place raided under s. 6 of the act is a common gaming-house, rests on two events. the first event is when any instrument of gaming ..... order(1) the second petitioner is the son of the first petitioner. both the petitioners have been convicted under s. 4 of the bombay prevention of gambling act (which shall be hereinafter called 'the act') and sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 15/- each, in default to undergo s. i. for four days, by the ..... gaming. on an examination of the chits and note books seized there are good grounds to doubt that the numbers found therein relate to satta gambling. hence the complainant could have had reasonable grounds to suspect that they were instruments of gaming.he swears that he did suspect that they were ..... satta. but the evidence adduced on this point cannot be stated to be conclusive.the complainant does not gain to have any special knowledge about gambling in satta. hence the instruments in question cannot be said to be instruments of gaming. next we have to see whether the complainant had reasonable .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 07 1989 (HC)

Ramchandra Shankar Ghone Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1989(3)BomCR214

..... the petitioner was prosecuted in summary case no. 1153 of 1983 for alleged offences punishable under sections 4, 5 and 12(a) of the bombay prevention of gambling act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the act). on conclusion of the trial, the learned judicial magistrate, f.c. patan, on deputation at karad however, by his order dated 18th ..... be said to be connected with the gaming. there is, of course, no reason why money not connected with gaming should be forfeited under the prevention of gambling act.'5. the incidental question which requires consideration is whether merely because the accused fails to account for money, money can be termed as 'instruments of ..... order of forfeiture of money seized from the house of the accused who is acquitted of the offence charged under the gambling act.2. it appears that on 7th july, 1983 at about 10.30 a.m, the police head constable of umbraj police station ..... with regard to confiscation will not apply to a case under statute in which special provisions for forfeiture have been made. section 8 of the act contains specific provision for foreiture and hence this contention is not acceptable. apart from that order of forfeiture of money on the ground that it ..... '. there is thus absolutely no evidence to connect money with the instruments of gaming within the provisions of section 3 r.w. section 8 of the act. it is, therefore, perfectly clear that the impugned order of forfeiture cannot be supported in law.6. mr. mulla. the learned counsel for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 1967 (SC)

Sindhi Lohana Chaithram Vs. the State of Gujarat

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1967SC1532; 1967CriLJ1396; (1968)0GLR101; [1967]3SCR351

..... bachawat, j. 1. the appellant and six other persons were charged under sections 4 and 5 of the bombay prevention of gambling act, 1887. the sub-inspector of police shri anjaria received information that the appellant was keeping a common gaming house. he obtained a special search warrant from the deputy superintendent of police, ..... the warrant. 6. we hold that shri pandya as the holder of the office of the deputy superintendent of police, porbandar was specially empowered under s. 6 of the bombay prevention of gambling act by the notification of the saurashtra government dated january 22, 1955. it is conceded that the notification continued to be in force after the merger of saurashtra with the state ..... office. a person may therefore be empowered by name or by virtue of his office of deputy superintendent of police to issue a special search warrant. section 6 of the bombay prevention of gambling act requires that the deputy superintendent of police must be 'specially empowered' to issue the warrant. in emperor v. udho and others a.i.r. 1943 sin 107, the expression ..... of bombay. the seizure of instruments of gaming in the appellant's house entered under s. 6 raises a presumption under s. 7 that the house was used as a common .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 06 1979 (SC)

Jagat Singh Kishor Singh Darbar and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1979SC857; 1979CriLJ851; (1979)0GLR608; (1979)4SCC307; [1979]3SCR33; 1979(11)LC788(SC)

..... of a division bench of that court upholding the conviction of each of the appellants under section 4 or section 5 of the bombay prevention of gambling act 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the bombay act) and a sentence of imprisonment coupled with fine.2. appeal no. 126 of 1972 has been filed by eight persons. ..... appellant no. 1 has been convicted of an offence under section 4 of the bombay act for keeping a common gaming house, while his ..... is another good reason for up holding the conviction and that flows from the presumption which has to be raised under section 7 of the bombay act which states:when any instrument of gaming has been seized in any house, room of place entered under section 6 or about the person ..... appeal and the conviction recorded against him is one for an offence under section 4 or, in the alternative, under section 5 of the bombay act. his two co-appellants have earned a conviction under the section last mentioned.3. the two appeals have arisen from criminal revisions nos. 490 ..... .we fully agree with the interpretation of the definition of the term 'common gaming house' occurring in section 3 of the bombay act as propounded in the two bombay authorities cited above, as also in the impugned judgment, that interpretation being in conformity with the unambiguous language employed by the legislature .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 1961 (HC)

State Vs. Dohana Jamnadas and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : AIR1961Guj182; (1961)0GLR501

..... station cannot be said to be a place to which the public have or are permitted to have access and, therefore, section 12 of the act (bombay prevention of gambling act, 1887. ed.) would have no application. he argued that male passengers are excluded though they have railway tickets with them from entering this room and ..... to the decision in tahirali v. emperor, 37 cri lj 876: (air-1936 sind 90). it was a case under sec. 12 of the bombay prevention of gambling act. the accused in that case were found playing in a private garden belonging to one abdul hussein to which only such respectable members of the public ..... an entry into this room by a male passenger even with a railway ticket of the necessary class is prohibited and made punishable under section 119 of the railways act ..... v. somabhaj govind-bhai, 40 bom lr 1082 : (air 1938 bom'484). it istrue that in that case a full bench of the high courtoi bombay considered the decision in emperor v.jusub ally, 7 bom lr 333, as having been correctly decided, certain observations made bybroomfield, j. there would at first ..... , 32 bom lr 790; (air 1930 bom 369). the accused there were found gambling in a hotel (tea shop) in the city of surat. they were tried and convicted of the offence under section 12 of this act and sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 100/-. it was held by mirza and .....

Tag this Judgment!


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