Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Emperor Vs. Babilal Balwant

Emperor vs Babilal Balwant

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Decided Sep 30, 1915
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/337940

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Application for Revision No. 202 of 1915
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act (Bom. Act IV of 1887), Section 10-Approvers-Indemnity-Accused not to be used as approvers.;Section 10 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act (Bom. Act IV of 1887) does not enable a trying Magistrate to examine any of the accused persons, while he is still in the position of an acc...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

Babilal Balwant

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1915Bom123; (1915)17BOMLR1078

Excerpt

bombay prevention of gambling act (bom. act iv of 1887), section 10-approvers-indemnity-accused not to be used as approvers.;section 10 of the bombay prevention of gambling act (bom. act iv of 1887) does not enable a trying magistrate to examine any of the accused persons, while he is still in the position of an accused person and has obtained no order of discharge or acquittal. - 1. in this case the learned magistrate in examining two of the accused persons, while they were still in the position of accused persons and had obtained no order of discharge or acquittal, committed an irregularity. his action is not to be justified under section 10 of the bombay prevention of gambling act. the statements of these two accused persons were, therefore, inadmissible in evidence, and if those statements are discarded from the record, there is nothing in evidence which, despite the presumptions arising under sections 5 and 7 of the act, would warrant the conviction of this applicant. for those presumptions in this particular case are weakened by the circumstance that the gambling was taking place not in a close room, but in an open shed.2. the rule, therefore, must be made absolute, the fine, if paid, being refunded.

Full Judgment

1. In this case the learned Magistrate in examining two of the accused persons, while they were still in the position of accused persons and had obtained no order of discharge or acquittal, committed an irregularity. His action is not to be justified under Section 10 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. The statements of these two accused persons were, therefore, inadmissible in evidence, and if those statements are discarded from the record, there is nothing in evidence which, despite the presumptions arising under Sections 5 and 7 of the Act, would warrant the conviction of this applicant. For those presumptions in this particular case are weakened by the circumstance that the gambling was taking place not in a close room, but in an open shed.

2. The rule, therefore, must be made absolute, the fine, if paid, being refunded.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial