Tulla and ors. Vs. Emperor

Tulla and ors. vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jan 11, 1919

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/471483

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/471483
Court: Allahabad
Judge: Lindsay, J.
Decided On: Jan 11, 1919
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Public Gambling Act (III of 1867), Sections 3, 4, conviction under - Money found on persons of accused, whether can be confiscated. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Tulla and ors.

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1919All72(1); 54Ind.Cas.250

Excerpt

public gambling act (iii of 1867), sections 3, 4, conviction under - money found on persons of accused, whether can be confiscated. - lindsay, j.1. this case has been referred by the sessions judge of saharanpur for the purpose 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, maturwa v. emperoi 46 ind. cas. 166 : 16 a.l.j. 428 : 40 a. 617 : 19 cr. l.j. 700. 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 Sessions Judge of Saharanpur for the purpose 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, Maturwa v. Emperoi 46 Ind. Cas. 166 : 16 A.L.J. 428 : 40 A. 617 : 19 Cr. L.J. 700. I accept the recommendation of the learned Judge and direct that the order of confiscation be set aside.

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

Criminal