AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 214 wordsBurn, J.—The contention that the Stationary Sub-Magistrate''s warrant was not issued u/s 5 of the Gaming Act cannot be accepted. The
contents of the warrant show, as the learned Joint Magistrate has very properly observed that it was in fact issued u/s 5 of the Gaming Act. I may
remark that there is no prescribed form for warrants u/s 5 of the Gaming Act, and moreover that section does not require the Magistrate to record
anywhere his reasons for believing any information the police may have given him. It does not even require him to record the fact that he has reason
to believe that any place is used as a common gaming-house. All that it requires is that the Magistrate shall have reason to believe...; if he has, he
can issue his warrant, not in any particular form, but his warrant giving authority to a Police Officer to do certain things. The requirements of
Section 5 are here complied with, and the learned Joint Magistrate decided rightly that the presumption of Section 6 of the Act was available to the
prosecution.
There was other evidence also on which the findings of the lower Courts could be based.
I can find no ground for interference in revision and 1 dismiss this petition.