Kashi Nath and ors. Vs. Emperor

Kashi Nath and ors. vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Mar 25, 1925

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/455013

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/455013
Court: Allahabad
Decided On: Mar 25, 1925
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

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

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kashi Nath and ors.

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1925All518

Excerpt

- stuart, j.1. the only point which has-been argued on this application is the point of jurisdiction. the applicant's counsel maintains that the gambling did not take place within the area to which the act had bean extended by the government notification of the 14th june, 1910.2. the gamblers were gambling in a boat-which was on the benares side of the midstream of the ganges. after examining the notification, i am of opinion that the southern boundary of the area to which the act extends is the north bank of the ganges. where the notification says 'the ganges' i understand it to mean the north bank of the ganges and not the mid-stream. it follows from this finding that no offence was committed because the gambling took place outside the area to which the act applies.3. i therefore, allow this application and act aside the convictions and sentences. the fines, if paid, will be refunded. those applicants who are in jail, will be released at once from custody. as i find that there was no case, i set aside the convictions and sentences even of those persons who have not applied in revision.

Full Judgment

Stuart, J.

1. The only point which has-been argued on this application is the point of jurisdiction. The applicant's Counsel maintains that the gambling did not take place within the area to which the Act had bean extended by the Government Notification of the 14th June, 1910.

2. The gamblers were gambling in a boat-which was on the Benares side of the midstream of the Ganges. After examining the Notification, I am of opinion that the Southern boundary of the area to which the Act extends is the North bank of the Ganges. Where the notification says 'the Ganges' I understand it to mean the North bank of the Ganges and not the mid-stream. It follows from this finding that no offence was committed because the gambling took place outside the area to which the Act applies.

3. I therefore, allow this application and act aside the convictions and sentences. The fines, if paid, will be refunded. Those applicants who are in jail, will be released at once from custody. As I find that there was no case, I set aside the convictions and sentences even of those persons who have not applied in revision.

Same Parties Kashi Nath and ors. vs Emperor Same Subject Civil

Civil