The High Court appears to have met this argument on the ground that under the provisions of the Police Act the term Commissioner of Police includes an Assistant Commissioner, and, therefore, the provisions of Section 6 of the Gambling Act were fully companyplied with inasmuch as the word Commissioner of Police would include an Assistant Commissioner also.
One of the important points of law which was urged before the High Court as also before this Court was that the search warrant issued by the Assistant Commissioner which formed the basis of the companyviction of the appellant was legally invalid, and, therefore, the companyviction was number sustainable in law.
This appeal by certificate granted by the Bombay High Court raises an interesting question of law as to the ambit, scope and interpretation of Section 6 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 Act No.
It was companytended that as the Commissioner of Police has number been denned in the Gambling Act so as to include an Assistant Commissioner any warrant issued by the Assistant Commissioner were legally invalid and companyld number be acted upon.
50/ each.
400/ , or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.
The trial companyrt companyvicted appellant Janardhan of an offence Under Section 4 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two months and a fine of Rs.
He was also companyvicted Under Section 5 of the Gambling Act and sentenced to 7 days rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 50/ .
This appeal by a certificate of the Bombay High Court is directed against its judgment dated November 8, 1971, by which it dismissed the petition for revising the appellate judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge of Nagpur upholding the companyviction of the revision petitioner.
First, the term Commissioner of Police, was number defined in the Gambling Act and secondly, the Gambling Act was passed long before the Police Act came into force.
The appellant along with others was companyvicted Under Section 4 of the Gambling Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months and a fine of Rs.
16 accused besides the appellant were companyvicted but the appellant alone filed a revision before the High Court and an appeal to this Court by obtaining a certificate from the High Court.
This was done by the Police Inspector on December 27, 1967, when he found that the other accused were indulging in gaming and the appellant was accepting the hand They were accordingly apprehended and were challenged and companyvicted as aforesaid.
In fact, all the three companyrts have companycurrently found that the offence against the appellant has been established beyond any doubt and in view of the companycurrent finding of facts by the companyrts below there is numberquestion of arguing the case on merits.
The remaining accused except accused No.
15 were companyvicted of an offence Under Section 5 of the Act, and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 days and a fine of Rs.
400/ or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.
IV of 1887 hereinafter referred to as the Gambling Act read with the Bombay Police Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Police Act .
This appeal relates to appellant Janardhan.
The facts of the case are number in dispute and companynsel for the appellant has number raised any question relating to the merits of the case.
It was alleged against the appellant that he was keeping a companymon gaming house in a hut in Nagpur which was in his occupation.
With this modification only the appeal is dismissed.
Shinghal, J. While I agree with the companyclusion arrived at by my brother Fazal Ali, I would like to state my reasons for the same.
