SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1950 Supreme(Mad) 65

CHANDRA REDDI


Advocates:
P. Satyanarayana Raju and P. Ramachandra Raju for Petitioners.
The Assistant Public Prosecutor (A.S. Sivakaminathan) for the State.

Order

The petitioners in this case were convicted under section 12 of the Madras Gaming Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15 each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week each by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Bhimavaram. It was also ordered that the sum of Rs. 251-13-3 seized by the police should be confiscated. On appeal the Sub-Divisional Magistrate confirmed the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioners.

The case against the petitioners is that on the night of 13th February, 1949, the petitioners were found playing cards for money by the Station House Officer who was examined as a prosecution witness, in a dilapidated house belonging to D.W.1.

The Courts below held that the house wherein the petitioners were gambling was a public place within the meaning of section 12 of the Gaming Act because it was a dilapidated house by the side of a road in a conspicuous place, and there was a killi shop by the side of it, and therefore the accused were guilty of an offence under that section.

It is not disputed that “the petitioners” were caught while playing cards for money on the night of the 12th February, 1949, but the main contention raised on behalf of the



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top