NAGPUR JUDICIAL COMMISSIONERS COURT
Kinkhede
SABIMIYA – Appellant
Versus
EMPEROR – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 254 of 1923
Decided on : 27-03-1924
Gambling - Public Place - Act III of 1867 - Section 13
Fact of the Case:
The court considered whether the place where gambling was taking place was a public place under Section 13 of Act III of 1867.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the place did not meet the criteria of a public place as it was privately owned and not dedicated to the use of the public at large.
Issues: The main issue was whether the place where gambling occurred qualified as a public place under the relevant legal provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the determination of whether a place is public or not is a question of fact based on evidence in each particular case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revisions, acquitted the accused, set aside their convictions and sentences, and ordered any fines recovered to be refunded.
Kikehede—The only point worth considering is whether there is any evidence to show that the place where the gambling was going on was a public place at which the Police-officer may apprehend without warrant any person found playing for money etc with cards, etc any game not being a game of skill within the meaning of section 13 of the Act III of 1867, as applied to Berar.
2. The expression public place has been interpreted in two reported oases of this Court: Vithu v. Emperor,1913 14 CrLJ 670, and Gajju v. Emperor,1918 14 NLR 137. The gist of the two rulings Is that the place in order to be public must be open to the public, i.e., a place to which the public have lawful access by right, permission, usage or otherwise. The proximity of a private place (like a chabutra) to a public thoroughfare is not always regarded as a sure criterion of the public nature of the place, see Queen-Empress v. Sri Lal,1895 AWN 42. In Khudi Sheikh V. The King-Emperor,1901 6 CalWN 33, the place was in a compound of a thakurbari surrounded by a pucca wall and it was held not to be a public place. Similarly in two other unreported cases of the Calcutta High Court referred to in Hari Singh v. Jadu Nandan Singh,1904 8 CalWN 458a verandah alongside a public road was held not to be a public place, though it was possible to enter it from the street. '' Where a place is in any way dedicated to the use of the public, it would of course be a public place. But where it is owned privately and no such dedication has taken place the question whether it is a public place depends on the character of the place and use actually made of it'' : see Vithu v. Emperor,1913 14 CrLJ 670, where the passage is quoted from Hari Singh v. Jadu Nandan Singh,1904 8 CalWN 458. Sir Henry Stanyon has held in Gajju v. Emperor,1918 14 NLR 137, that a place to which the public resort habitually or as a matter of fact, whether of right or with the permission of a private owner is a public place. The District Magistrate has described the situation in the following words:--
There are thorn fencing round the field on three sides and on one side a hedge. A small portion of the field is occulted by garden crops. There are some fifteen to twenty farm houses in the field belonging to different persons. I imagine that by farm houses the Magistrate means kothas where cattle are kept and their attendants also elope. There are heaps of karbi in the field belonging to various persons. The distance between the place where gambling was going on and the gate is about 100 yards and the boundary of the field is about 60 yards from the place where the gambling was carried on. Within fitly yards of the place a much frequented cart track passes. There are two wells in the field one of which is based by the public while the other is reserved for irrigating the garden crops in the field. The Magistrate has held that the place where gambling was oarried on is a public place and I am of the opinion that his decision is correct.
3. Then after discussing the two local rulings the learned District Magistrate came to the conclusion that the place was public place in accordance with the tests applied by Sir Henry Drake-Brock man in Vithu v. Emperor,1913 4 CrLJ 670. The existence of the khallas in the field or kothas in portions of the field does not necessarily speak of dedication to public at large. It rather shows that the owner of the soil has granted his permission to particular individuals of agriculturists with a view to derive benefit of manure and urine of agricultural and other cattle, etc. which these persons may keep in the khalas or the kothas. It is just possible those particular individuals may have been granted special privileges by the owner of the soil. The existence of private kothas on the land shows private ownership. It is no proof of any dedication to the public. The word ''public'' is defined in Webstor's Dictionary as meaning the general body of mankind or of a nation, state or community
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.