Nanhe Lal Vs. Emperor

Nanhe Lal vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Oct 24, 1924

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/462264

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/462264
Court: Allahabad
Decided On: Oct 24, 1924
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

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

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nanhe Lal

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1925All301

Excerpt

- .....in the house. nanhe lal was convicted by the magistrate who heard the case under section 3 and under section 4 of the gambling act. the learned sessions judge on appeal set aside his conviction under section 3 on the ground that it had not been proved that nanhe had taken part in organising the gaming.3. in this court it is contended that the only evidence on which it has been found that the place was a public gaming place consists of the statement of one bulaqi and the fact that certain dice and other instruments of gaming were found at the place. it is urged that the circumstances and the evidence relied upon are both inadmissible in evidence. it having been found that the search was illegal, the presumption under section 6 of the gambling act does not arise. it follows, therefore, that the presence of dice and the board and the pot by itself does not raise any presumption that the premises were being used as a common gaming house. as to the evidence of bulaqi it appears that he was one of the persons arrested during the raid. he could be rightly examined on oath, as had. been done, only in case the premises were entered into under the provisions of the act (vide section 10 of the act). as it has happened, the premises were not entered into under the provisions of act iii of 1867. they were entered into contrary to the provisions of the act, and, therefore, the magistrate was not authorised to call upon one of the persons arrested to take oath and give evidence in the case. thus the presumption and the direct evidence both go. the result is that the conviction of nanhe lal cannot be upheld.4. i allow the application, set aside the conviction of nanhe lal under section 4 of the gambling act and order that the fine, if paid, be refunded.

Full Judgment

Mukerji, J.

1. This is an application by one Nanhe Lal to obtain a reversal of his conviction under Section 4 of the Public Gambling Act (Act No. III of 1867).

2. It appears that an Assistant Superintendent of Police, who is not authorised under Section 5 of the Public Gambling Act to search a place without a warrant, raided certain premises and arrested certain people in it, as to whom it is said that they were gambling in the house. Nanhe Lal was convicted by the Magistrate who heard the case under Section 3 and under Section 4 of the Gambling Act. The learned Sessions Judge on appeal set aside his conviction under Section 3 on the ground that it had not been proved that Nanhe had taken part in organising the gaming.

3. In this Court it is contended that the only evidence on which it has been found that the place was a public gaming place consists of the statement of one Bulaqi and the fact that certain dice and other instruments of gaming were found at the place. It is urged that the circumstances and the evidence relied upon are both inadmissible in evidence. It having been found that the search was illegal, the presumption under Section 6 of the Gambling Act does not arise. It follows, therefore, that the presence of dice and the board and the pot by itself does not raise any presumption that the premises were being used as a common gaming house. As to the evidence of Bulaqi it appears that he was one of the persons arrested during the raid. He could be rightly examined on oath, as had. been done, only in case the premises were entered into under the provisions of the Act (vide Section 10 of the Act). As it has happened, the premises were not entered into under the provisions of Act III of 1867. They were entered into contrary to the provisions of the Act, and, therefore, the Magistrate was not authorised to call upon one of the persons arrested to take oath and give evidence in the case. Thus the presumption and the direct evidence both go. The result is that the conviction of Nanhe Lal cannot be upheld.

4. I allow the application, set aside the conviction of Nanhe Lal under Section 4 of the Gambling Act and order that the fine, if paid, be refunded.

Same Parties Nanhe Lal vs Emperor Same Subject Civil

Civil