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.

Sudhir Kumar Roy Vs. Emperor

Sudhir Kumar Roy vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jan 05, 1939
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/866057

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
Kolkata
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sudhir Kumar Roy

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1939Cal326

Excerpt

- orderedgley, j.1. in this case, the petitioner has been convicted under section 45, calcutta police act (bengal act 4 of 1866). it is said that he was found in a common gaming house which was used for the purpose of gambling in connexion with horse-racing. in the case of this sort, the onus clearly lay upon the prosecution to show that the house in which the petitioner was found was a common gaming house as denned in section 3 of the act. in order to satisfy the requirements of this section, it would be for the prosecution to show that instruments of gaming were kept or used in that house for the profit or gain of the person owning, occupying using or keeping such house.2. it is said, that the petitioner was found with ex. 2 which is a slip of paper containing certain figures and the names of race-horses and also with a sum of money in his pocket. i have examined the slip of paper; and, in my opinion, it cannot be said that it fulfils the requirements of the definition of 'instruments of gaming' under section 3 of the act nor is there any evidence on the record to show that the slip in question was in fact an instrument of gaming or that the petitioner was using it for the purpose of profit or gain. similarly, there is do evidence to indicate that the money found on the person of the petitioner was for the purpose of gambling. having regard to the considerations mentioned above, this rule must be made absolute and the conviction of the petitioner set aside. the fine if already paid and the money found on the person of the petitioner must be refunded.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Edgley, J.

1. In this case, the petitioner has been convicted under Section 45, Calcutta Police Act (Bengal Act 4 of 1866). It is said that he was found in a common gaming house which was Used for the purpose of gambling in connexion with horse-racing. In the case of this sort, the onus clearly lay upon the prosecution to show that the house in which the petitioner was found was a common gaming house as denned in Section 3 of the Act. In order to satisfy the requirements of this Section, it would be for the prosecution to show that instruments of gaming were kept or used in that house for the profit or gain of the person owning, occupying using or keeping such house.

2. It is said, that the petitioner was found with Ex. 2 which is a slip of paper containing certain figures and the names of race-horses and also with a sum of money in his pocket. I have examined the slip of paper; and, in my opinion, it cannot be said that it fulfils the requirements of the definition of 'instruments of gaming' under Section 3 of the Act nor is there any evidence on the record to show that the slip in question was in fact an instrument of gaming or that the petitioner was using it for the purpose of profit or gain. Similarly, there is DO evidence to indicate that the money found on the person of the petitioner was for the purpose of gambling. Having regard to the considerations mentioned above, this rule must be made absolute and the conviction of the petitioner set aside. The fine if already paid and the money found on the person of the petitioner must be refunded.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial