Emperor Vs. Maturwa

Emperor vs Maturwa

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Mar 20, 1918

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/451992

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/451992
Court: Allahabad
Judge: Pramada Charan Banerji, J.
Decided On: Mar 20, 1918
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Act No. 111 of 1867 (Public Gambling Act), Section 13 - Gaming in public place--Seizure of money as well as instruments of gaming illegal -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

Maturwa

Legal References

Reported In: (1918)ILR40All517

Excerpt

act no. 111 of 1867 (public gambling act), section 13 - gaming in public place--seizure of money as well as instruments of gaming illegal - pramada charan banerji, j.1. the accused in this case was convicted under the gambling act. the magistrate who convicted him ordered confiscation of the money which was found in his possession. the learned sessions judge has reported the casa to this court with the recommendation that this portion of the learned magistrate's order should be set aside as not being in conformity with law. it is clear from the language of section 18 of the gambling act that all that could be confiscated were the instruments of gaming. this was so held in the case to which the learned sessions judge refers. acceding therefore to the recommendation of the learned sessions judge, i set aside so much of the order of the magistrate as directs the-confiscation of the money found in the possession of the accused and direct that it be refunded to him.

Full Judgment

Pramada Charan Banerji, J.

1. The accused in this case was convicted under the Gambling Act. The Magistrate who convicted him ordered confiscation of the money which was found in his possession. The learned Sessions Judge has reported the casa to this Court with the recommendation that this portion of the learned Magistrate's order should be set aside as not being in conformity with law. It is clear from the language of Section 18 of the Gambling Act that all that could be confiscated were the instruments of gaming. This was so held in the case to which the learned Sessions Judge refers. Acceding therefore to the recommendation of the learned Sessions Judge, I set aside so much of the order of the Magistrate as directs the-confiscation of the money found in the possession of the accused and direct that it be refunded to him.

Same Parties Emperor vs Maturwa Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Pramada Charan Banerji, J.

Criminal