CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
M.C. Ghose, J., Costello, J.
M.A. Adams & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Emperor - Respondent
Decided On : 29-03-1935
GAMBLING - Calcutta Police Act - 44, 45, 46 - The judgment discusses the raid on the Harlequin Club premises and the subsequent trial of the accused for gambling on horse races. The court found the accused guilty under sections 44 and 45 of the Calcutta Police Act, 1866, and imposed fines and imprisonment. The court also addressed the confiscation of money found on the accused, ruling that it should be returned.
Fact of the Case:
The Detective Department raided the Harlequin Club premises and found individuals engaged in gambling on horse races. The accused were charged and tried for gambling at the club, and the court found them guilty under sections 44 and 45 of the Calcutta Police Act, 1866.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of being present at the club for the purpose of gaming and imposed fines and imprisonment. The court also ruled that the money seized from the accused should be returned.
Issues: The main issue was whether the premises constituted a common gaming house, and whether the accused were engaged in gambling on horse races.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the premises were a common gaming house and that the accused were involved in gaming activities, leading to their conviction under the relevant sections of the Calcutta Police Act.
Final Decision: The court upheld the convictions, imposed fines and imprisonment, and ordered the return of the confiscated money.
JUDGMENT
Costello, J. - On 25th January 1935, acting under the authority of a warrant signed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police under the Provisions of Section 46, Calcutta Police Act, 1866, Sub-Inspector Syed Hossain of the Detective Department raided certain premises consisting of two rooms situated on the first floor of No. 15, Park Street. These rooms were said to be occupied by a club known as Harlequin Club. In the first room there was a billiard table bench, and some sort of locker or cupboard, and from that room access could be had through a swing door, to the second room which was a card room containing a card table, chairs and a small side board. In the entrance hall, as it has been called, the Police party found seven persons, M.A. Adams, Jan Mohammad, Mr. and Mrs. Ellis, Ben Rose, Ismail Bham, and M. Morris. In the card room there were nine persons, F. Coelho, D. Coelho, T. Blake, H. Sukeas, O.K. Spanos, E. Peters, M. Echlin, L. Green, and Robin Neid. The last named jumped out of the window when the police arrived, but subsequently reported himself at the Park Street Police Station. The raid took place at 11 p.m., on the night of 25th January, and Robin Neid came to the police station about three hours later. All the persons found in the premises were placed under arrest and with the exception of one Mrs. Ellis, they were searched in the presence of a search witness.
2. All the persons whose names I have mentioned, were put upon their trial before the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta. All of them were charged with gambling on horse races at the Harlequin Club premises, No. 15 Park Street, and so committing an offence u/s 45, Calcutta Police Act, 1886, and in addition M.A. Adams as the Secretary of the Club was further charged that he as the Secretary of the Harlequin Club was the occupier of 15 Park Street and was keeping and using that place as a common gambling house on the night of 25th January 1935 and so committed an offence u/s 44, Calcutta Police Act, 1866. In order to make plain what the position was, it is necessary that I should recapitulate the facts which were given in evidence before the learned Magistrate as to what was discovered at the time when the raid took place, in that part of the premises described as the entrance hall. Jan Mahammad and Ismail were found seated on a bench, and Mr. and Mrs. Ellis, Ben Rose, M. Morris, and M.A. Adams standing around in a body. On the floor close to where Jan Mohammad was seated were found two slips of paper which were Exs. 9 and 9(1). According to the prosecution these slips of paper were betting slips. Jan Mohammad admitted that the slip Ex. 9(1) which contained writing in the Guzrati language was in his handwriting, but he disowned the other slip Ex. 9. Another slip of paper which is Ex. 10 containing names of certain horses was also found in the entrance hall of the premises. M.A. Adams was found to have the sum of Rs. 2-10-0 on his person; Ben Rose had a pocket book in which there was the following entry: 'Bardley' 160-20 Adams, 160-20 Bose. He also had Rs. 1880 in cash. Jan Mahmmad had Rs 165 in cash; J. Ellis had Rs. 125-2-9. Mrs. Ellis, as I have already said, was not searched apparently because there was no female searcher available at the time. Ismail Bham had Rs. 66; M. Morris had no money at all.
3. The persons who were found in the card room were also searched. On the floor of that room there were found six small pieces of paper with the names of horses and apparently bets inscribed thereon. They were put in evidence as Ex. 11. There were also twenty-one pieces of torn paper which were put in as Ex. 12. The prosecution case was that all these pieces of paper, in all twenty-seven, had formed a single sheet of paper on which bets had been recorded immediately to or shortly before the raid. In a drawer of the side board was found a blank playing card Ex. 13, on which appear the names of horses and a bet. In a cash box there was a book of Irish Swe
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.