Maturwa Vs. Emperor

Maturwa vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Mar 20, 1918

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/466246

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/466246
Court: Allahabad
Judge: P.C. Banerji, J.
Decided On: Mar 20, 1918
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Gambling Act (III of 1867), Section 13 - Confiscation of money found in possession of accused, order for, legality of. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Maturwa

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1918All390; 46Ind.Cas.156

Excerpt

gambling act (iii of 1867), section 13 - confiscation of money found in possession of accused, order for, legality of. - 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 case 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 13 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 recommendations 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

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 case 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 13 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 recommendations 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 Maturwa vs Emperor Same Subject Criminal Same Judge P.C. Banerji, J.

Criminal