In Re: P. Krishnamurthi

Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.—The petitioner, P. Krishnamurti, has been convicted u/s 37(4), City Police Act and has been fined Rs. 35 by the

3rd Presidency Magistrate, Madras, for receiving beta on horses running at the Guindy races at about 3-30 pm . on 4th December 1948.

Mr. Ghatala, for the petitioner, raised three main contentions: The first was that P. W. 2, who swore to his giving the petitioner Rs. 1.4.0 three

times that day for betting, cannot be believed as P. W. 2 did not know the petitioner before and could not have paid him the three bet amounts,

especially as there were the regular race course men ready to receive bets. I cannot agree. The regular race course men don''t receive petty

amounts like Rs. 1-4-0 from betting enthusiasts of poor means like P. W. 2. They cater to gentlemen who can afford to pay the regulation bet

amount. Bucket-shop men secretly cater to men of petty means like P. W. 2. Nor is previous friendship essential for giving and taking bets. In the

exotic atmosphere of toddy-shops and race, courses a camaraderie springs up like magic, and no previous friendship is necessary.

The next contention was that the lower Court should have believed D. WS. 1 and 2 and held that the petitioner had gone there to bet himself, on

behalf of himself and his friends, and not to receive beta. I cannot agree, D. Ws. 1 and 2 were interested and unreliable. P. Ws 1 and 2 swore that

the petitioner was only receiving bets from men of small means like P. W. 2.

The last contention was that receiving bets inside a race course by any one would be no offence, and that what the regular race course

authorities could do with impunity others also could do. The argument is preposterous. Only those authorised to bet are exempt. Thus a man

sentenced to death must be hanged by the usual jail authorities authorised to do so. For any man to go and catch him and hang him will be an

offence, so too, for a layman to go and whip a man sentenced to whipping or to look up a man sentenced to imprisonment.

The petitioner''s conviction was correct and is confirmed. The sentence too is not at all excessive. It too is confirmed, and this petition dismissed.