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

1920 Supreme(All) 162

PIGGOTT
Mahadeo – Appellant
Versus
Emperor – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Piggott, J. - This is an application in revision by one Mahadeo, who has been convicted of the offence which may be broadly described as that of keeping a common gaming house, punishable u/s 3 of the Public Gambling Act, Act No. Ill of 1867, and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months. The case was tried summarily and no appeal lay under the law. The matter was brought in revision before the Sessions Judge, who has written careful order dealing with the points raised before him and has found no cause for interference. Before me the following points have been urged:

(1) That the search as conducted was irregular and invalid in law. and could not operate so as to give rise ageist the persons accused to the presumption referred to in Section 6 of Act No. III of 1867, by reason of the fast that the Magistrate's warrant authorising the search had been endorsed by the Police Officer to whom (by virtue of his office) it was originally issued, to another Police Officer of rank qualifying him to conduct searches u/s 5 of the Act. As pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge, this point is covered by authority in this Court vide Emperor v. Kashi Nath 30 A. 60 : 5 A.

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