Skip to content
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.

Rex Vs. Jaggopal Prasad and ors.

Rex vs Jaggopal Prasad and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 30, 1941
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/783772

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

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

Citation
Court
Chennai
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

- - The learned Magistrate's rule of thumb may do well enough in the average case, where there is no evidence one way or the other to indicate whether the money found on the person has been used for gaming or not;

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rex

Respondent

Jaggopal Prasad and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1941Mad889(2); (1941)2MLJ397

Excerpt

- - the learned magistrate's rule of thumb may do well enough in the average case, where there is no evidence one way or the other to indicate whether the money found on the person has been used for gaming or not;.....person conducting the betting would put the money in his pocket--not elsewhere. from the first respondent was recovered a sum of rs. 443-11-0. the value of the betting slips on his person amounted rs. 188. in a tin box belonging to him were found betting slips amounting to rs. 272. thus the total value of betting slips found in his possession was rs. 460-14-0, a little over rs. 17 more than the value of the money found in his pockets. on the person of the second accused was cash to the value of rs. 19-4-0 and betting slips of the value of rs. 24-8-0. on the person of the third accused cash was found to the value of rs. 35-8-0 and betting slips of the value of rs. 52-6-0. it is a question of fact in each case whether money found on the person of a person convicted under this act was used for gaming. the close similarity between the sums found and the sums noted on the betting slips seems to be more than a coincidence, and i have little doubt in mind that the money found on the persons of the three accused was money used by them for gaming. the learned magistrate's rule of thumb may do well enough in the average case, where there is no evidence one way or the other to indicate whether the money found on the person has been used for gaming or not; but where there is evidence pointing one way or the other the magistrate is bound to take that evidence into consideration and not to rely entirely on his rough rule of practice.4. the petition is, therefore, allowed and the money seized by the police ordered to be forfeited.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Horwill, J.

1. The first respondent has been found guilty of running a gaming house and the other respondents of gaming within the house.

2. The only question that arises in this petition is whether the money found in the pockets of the three respondents should be confiscated. Under Section 47 of the City Police Act the Magistrate may order all or any of the articles seized or the proceeds thereof to be forfeited. Various articles were found about the premises, and the police also seized the money that was in the pockets of the three respondents. The Magistrate has declined to forfeit the money that was on their person, and the question that arises in this revision petition--which has been filed by the Crown--is whether the Magistrate's order was a right one.

3. There can be no doubt that the general principle to be adopted by a Magistrate in considering a question of this kind is whether the money is likely to have been used in connection with the gaming. If so, he should order its forfeiture. If not, he should refrain from doing so. The Magistrate has not really; considered this question at all; but has said that he intends following the practice of his Court to declare forfeited such money as may be found on the floor, and no more. The gaming of which the respondents were guilty was betting on horse races. When bets are made, money is taken and betting-slips written in duplicate, one kept by the owner and one by the client. The point on which the Crown rely is that the sum of money found on the persons of the accused roughly corresponds with the value of the betting slips. It is not to be expected, the learned Crown Prosecutor says, that money should be lying about on the floor. One would expect, when a bet is made, that the person conducting the betting would put the money in his pocket--not elsewhere. From the first respondent was recovered a sum of Rs. 443-11-0. The value of the betting slips on his person amounted Rs. 188. In a tin box belonging to him were found betting slips amounting to Rs. 272. Thus the total value of betting slips found in his possession was Rs. 460-14-0, a little over Rs. 17 more than the value of the money found in his pockets. On the person of the second accused was cash to the value of Rs. 19-4-0 and betting slips of the value of Rs. 24-8-0. On the person of the third accused cash was found to the value of Rs. 35-8-0 and betting slips of the value of Rs. 52-6-0. It is a question of fact in each case whether money found on the person of a person convicted under this Act was used for gaming. The close similarity between the sums found and the sums noted on the betting slips seems to be more than a coincidence, and I have little doubt in mind that the money found on the persons of the three accused was money used by them for gaming. The learned Magistrate's rule of thumb may do well enough in the average case, where there is no evidence one way or the other to indicate whether the money found on the person has been used for gaming or not; but where there is evidence pointing one way or the other the Magistrate is bound to take that evidence into consideration and not to rely entirely on his rough rule of practice.

4. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the money seized by the police ordered to be forfeited.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial