High CourtsSingle Bench

In Re: Kota. Dhanarao and others

Madras High Court · Decided on 29 April 1954 · Citation: (1954) 04 MAD CK 0041

HON’BLE JUDGES
Somasundaram, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930 — Section 9
CASE NUMBER
C.R.C. No. 853 of 1953 and Criminal R.P. No. 800 of 1953
Ask AI about this case

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

3 paragraphs · 350 words

Somasundaram, J.—The petitioners have all been convicted under S. 9 of the Madras Gaming Act for having been found playing in a common gaming house. As a result of the warrant obtained the Sub-Inspector of Police. P. W. 1 raided the house and found the petitioners herein playing cards with money. The card packets, loose, cards two containers of the cards and one of them having Rs. 0-9-0 were seized. The question is whether on the presumption raised under S. 6 the petitioners could be convicted without any additional piece of evidence. S. 6 says

Any cards, dice, gaming table or cloth'' board or other instruments of gaming found in any place entered or searched under the provisions of the last preceding section, or on any person found therein shall be evidence that such place is used as a common gaming house and that the persons found therein were there present for the purpose of gaming, although no play was actually seen by the Police Officer or any of his assistants.

When the section says "any cards etc., shall be evidence " the question is whether that evidence by itself is sufficient or whether any additional piece of evidence is necessary for the purpose of conviction. As pointed out by Horwill, J in Kulandaivelu Chettiar v. Emperor (1938) M.W.N. Crl. 69=47 L.W. 648, though there is nothing in the Act which prevents a Magistrate from convicting upon that evidence alone, still in almost every case there is some other evidence also. In short, though the section does not in terms prohibit the conviction merely on the presumption raised under S. 5, still invariably it has been the practice prevailing in this Court not to convict on mere evidence alone unless there is something more in addition to the presumption raised under that section. There is no such additional evidence in this case. The case rests merely on the presumption raised under S. 6. In these circumstances'', the convictions of the petitioners under S. 9 cannot stand and therefore the convictions are set aside. The lines, in paid, will be refunded.