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

1954 Supreme(All) 137

ASTHANA
HANNU – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S.N. Dwivedi

JUDGMENT

Asthana, J.

[1] This is an application in revision by one Hannu who has been convicted under Section 332, I. P. C., and Section 3, U. P. Gambling Act and has been sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 332, Penal Code, and to a fine of Rs. 150/- under Section 3, Gambling Act.

[2] It was contended on behalf of the applicant that the Sub-Inspector who entered the house for search was not competent to do so as he had not been authorised under Section 5, U. P. Gambling Act. It appears from a perusal of the judgments of the lower Courts that the Superintendent of Police had authorised the Station Officer, Jhansi, under Section 5, Gambling Act, to enter the house of the applicant in order to make the search as he was satisfied that the house in question was used as a gaming house, that the warrant which was directed to the Station Officer was not executed by him personally but was endorsed by him in the name of another Sub-Inspector and it was that Sub-Inspector in whose name the warrant was endorsed who entered the house along with some constables and other persons to make the search, and that while the search was being made the applicant assaulted one 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