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
5 paragraphs · 166 wordsJackson, Offg. C.J.
This case is not on all fours with the one referred to by the Sessions Judge.
In that case a Division Bench of this Court, finding no independent evidence on the record that the house which was entered and searched was a gaming-house within the meaning of the Act, held, that it could not be presumed to be so u/s 6 of the Act, because that presumption only arises when the proceedings are authorized by the preceding section, which, for the reasons stated in the judgment, was held not to be the case.
In the case under reference there is the direct evidence of the witness Hurri Krishna Gosswami to show that the house of Kangali Dhoni was a gaming-house. Therefore, although the action of the Police may have been illegal, this would not exculpate the accused, or prevent the Magistrate convicting them on other independent evidence.
We, therefore, decline to interfere with the order of the Deputy Magistrate.