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

1918 Supreme(All) 9

PIGGOTT
Mathura – Appellant
Versus
Emperor – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Piggott, J. - In this case the three applicants, Mathura, Gangadin and Jagannath, have been convicted of an offence u/s 13 of the Gambling Act, III of 1367. The one and only question raised by this application is, whether the trial of the applicants was or was not vitiated by any illegality or material irregularity in connection with the constitution of the Court which tried them for this offence. The Court in question was a Bench of Honorary Magistrates sitting at the town of Kaimganj. I find that the Local Government, in the exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had appointed three gentlemen, Mr. Jan Alam Khan, Mr. Nazir Ali Khan and Pandit Chaube Peare Lal, to be a Bench of Magistrates exercising jurisdiction in this particular place. It is not denied that the offence of which the applicants were tried was one within the jurisdiction of the aforesaid Bench, or that the sentence passed was one within the competence of the said Court. The point taken is as follows.

2. There were three hearings of this case in the trial Court. On December the 5th, 1917, the case was taken up by Mr. Nazir Ali Khan and Mr. Jan Alam Khan and t

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