MANMAL SARAOGI Vs. STATE
LAWS(RAJ)-1952-3-26
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on March 14,1952

MANMAL SARAOGI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

NEMICHAND V. CROWN [REFERRED TO]
RAJARAM V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
SRI RAM VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)HEARD the parties.
(2.)THE accused-applicant stands convicted under Sections 3 and 4 of the Public Gambling Act and sentenced in the aggregate to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ -.
(3.)THE only point pressed at the time of arguments in revision is that as the trial Court itself had issued the search warrant the accused-applicant has been materially prejudiced and, as such, he should be acquitted. The counsel for the accused-applicant in this connection has drawn my attention to the rulings as cited in Rajaram v. Emperor AIR 1924 Lah 247 and Syam Behari v. Emperor AIR 1934 All 987 (2 ). The Government Advocate, on the other hand, relies on the rulings as cited in 1935 AMLJ 59 and Nemichand v. Crown 1938 AMLJ 40. The later set of the rulings clearly lays down that in such cases a Court would not be justified in raising presumptions as could have been raised in case a valid warrant had been issued. On the evidence of the parties otherwise the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have clearly come to the findings that the shop of the accused-applicant was a 'common gaming-house' and that he received bets. The accused applicant, in the circumstances, has rightly been convicted under Sections 3 and 4 of the Public Gambling Act.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.