NIMMAGADDA RAGHAVALU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Click here to view full judgement.
Ramaswami, J. -
(1.) This is a criminal revision case filed against the conviction and sentence of the petitioners in C. A. No. 67 of 1951 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Bandar confirming the conviction and sentence in C.C. Nos. 70 to 76 of 1951 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Avanigadda.
(2.) The facts are: On 12-1-1951 the Sub-Inspector of Police of Avanigadda approached the Stationary Sub Magistrate of Avanigadda with a requisition, Ex. P. 2; in which he stated that he had reliable information that gambling on a large scale was going on in a common gaming house bearing door No. 21/4 in the fourth ward of Avanigadda belonging to Tangiralla Viswanadha Sastri and requested the issue of a search warrant to enable him to search the house. The Sub-Magistrate is stated to have put further questions also to the Sub Inspector of Police as would justify him to issue the warrant and he is said to have after satisfying himself, issued a search warrant, Ex. D. 1. This search warrant was issued on 12-1-1951. In pursuance of this warrant on 14-1-1951 the Sub- Inspector of Police of Avanigadda accompanied by two Panchayatdars of whom one has been examined as P. W. 1, viz., J.D. Jacob., correspondent of the C. B. H. School, Avanigadda, and another who has not been examined, is said to have raided the place. The seven accused persons who are the seven petitioners before us are stated to have been found playing cards for money in 'the house and the following were found by the Sub Inspector and Jacob. One set of playing cards numbering 52, money amounting to Rs. 152-5-10, two bed lights, two torch lights and two mats etc. The Station House officer arrested the seven accused and seized the above articles and money before the mediators and got a Panchayatnama, Ex. P. 1, written on the spot and charge-sheeted the accused.
(3.) The learned Stationary Sub-Magistrate's judgment shows that this case had been tried under the summons procedure because he writes in para 2 of his judgment that when the accused were called on to explain after the substance of the accusation against them were stated to them they stated that that day being the Sankaranthi festival day Thangirala Anjaneya Sarma was performing Satyanarayana Vritam and that on invitation from him they all went to his house and that the house was not a common gaming house and that they did not gamble there.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.