Emperor Vs. Tulla and ors.

Emperor vs Tulla and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jan 11, 1919

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/454515

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/454515
Court: Allahabad
Judge: Lindsay, J.
Decided On: Jan 11, 1919
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

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

Act No. III of 1867 (Public Gambling Act), Sections 3, 4 - Common gaming house--Order for confiscation of money found, on the persons of accused. -

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

Tulla and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: (1919)ILR61All366

Excerpt

act no. iii of 1867 (public gambling act), sections 3, 4 - common gaming house--order for confiscation of money found, on the persons of accused. - lindsay, j.1. this case has been referred by the session judge of saharanpur for the purposes of having an order passed by a magistrate set aside. the magistrate was dealing with a case under the gambling act and after convicting the persons who were accused before him he made an order confiscating some of the money which was found in possession of the persons concerned. the judge, i think, is right in saying that the law does not contemplate the confiscation of the money found on the person of the accused. he refers to a ruling of this court, emperor v. maturwa. (1918) i.l.r., 40 all., 517. i accept the recommendation of the learned judge and direct that the order of confiscation be set aside.

Full Judgment

Lindsay, J.

1. This case has been referred by the Session Judge of Saharanpur for the purposes of having an order passed by a Magistrate set aside. The Magistrate was dealing with a case under the Gambling Act and after convicting the persons who were accused before him he made an order confiscating some of the money which was found in possession of the persons concerned. The Judge, I think, is right in saying that the law does not contemplate the confiscation of the money found on the person of the accused. He refers to a ruling of this Court, Emperor v. Maturwa. (1918) I.L.R., 40 All., 517. I accept the recommendation of the learned Judge and direct that the order of confiscation be set aside.

Same Parties Emperor vs Tulla and ors. Same Subject Civil Same Judge Lindsay, J.

Civil