Skip to content
Try for free
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.
See full guide →

Emperor Vs. Kifayat

Emperor vs Kifayat

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Dec 20, 1918
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/460511

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

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

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Act III of 1867 (Public Gambling Act), Sections 4 and 8 - Conviction for being found in a common gaming house--Forfeiture of money found in the house legal. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

Kifayat

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1919All188(1); (1919)ILR61All272

Excerpt

act iii of 1867 (public gambling act), sections 4 and 8 - conviction for being found in a common gaming house--forfeiture of money found in the house legal. - muhammad rafiq, j.1. i have read the order of reference of the learned sessions judge of meerut. it appears to me that in view of the provisions of section 8 of act iii of 1867, the order about the forfeiture of the money seized at the house is correct, vide emperor v. tota (1904) i.l.r., 26 all., 270. let the record be returned to the lower court.

Full Judgment

Muhammad Rafiq, J.

1. I have read the order of reference of the learned Sessions Judge of Meerut. It appears to me that in view of the provisions of Section 8 of Act III of 1867, the order about the forfeiture of the money seized at the house is correct, vide Emperor v. Tota (1904) I.L.R., 26 All., 270. Let the record be returned to the lower court.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties Emperor vs Kifayat Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Muhammad Rafiq, J
Criminal

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales