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.

NaraIn Bhatta and ors.

NaraIn Bhatta and ors.;p. Srinivasa Rau and ors. vs ;

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 08, 1909
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/809394

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
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Gambling Act, Section 7 - Gaming in one room--Conviction of persons sitting in another room--Presumption. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

NaraIn Bhatta and ors.;p. Srinivasa Rau and ors.

Respondent

;

Legal References

Reported In
5Ind.Cas.934a

Excerpt

gambling act, section 7 - gaming in one room--conviction of persons sitting in another room--presumption. - ordermiller, j.1. of these petitioners nos. 22 and 23 were sitting in what is called the 2nd room; and it is contended that this room cannot be taken to be part of the common gaming house and so the presumption under section 7 does not arise.2. this contention was not raised in either court below and the things found in the 2nd room afford evidence that it was part of the gaming house.3. i dismiss the petitions.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Miller, J.

1. Of these petitioners Nos. 22 and 23 were sitting in what is called the 2nd room; and it is contended that this room cannot be taken to be part of the common gaming house and so the presumption under Section 7 does not arise.

2. This contention was not raised in either Court below and the things found in the 2nd room afford evidence that it was part of the gaming house.

3. I dismiss the petitions.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial