400/ or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.
in fact all the three companyrts have concurrently found that the offence against the appellant has been established beyond any doubt and in view of the concurrent finding of facts by the companyrts below there is no question of arguing the case on merits.
the assistant companymissioner of police issued a special warrant of entry and search under section 6 of the act on december 25 1967 which was valid upto december 31 1967 empowering the police inspector to enter and search the appellants hut as it was suspected to be used as companymon gaming house.
would include an .assistant companymissioner also.
they were accordingly apprehended and were challenged and convicted as aforesaid.
thus the entire.
shinghal j. while agree with the companyclusion arrived at by my brother fazal ali i would like to state my reasons for the same.
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 nal.
as the central clauses act was a statute which was passed before the gambling act came info force.
from the judgment and order dated 8 11 1971 of the bombay high companyrt nagpur bench at nagpur in criminal revision application number 39 of 1971.
first the term companymissioner of police was number defined in the gambling act and secondly the gambling act was passed long before the police act came into force.
one of the important points of law which was urged before the high companyrt as also before this companyrt was that the search warrant issued by the assistant companymissioner which formed the basis of the companyviction of the appellant was legally invalid and therefore the companyviction was number sustainable in law.
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.
the remaining accused except accused number 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.
it was companytended that as the companymissioner of police has number been defined in the gambling act so as to include an assistant companymissioner any warrant issued by the assistant companymissioner were legally invalid and companyld number be acted upon.
501 each.
it was also argued before the high companyrt that the search warrant did number companytain a full and companyplete description of the hut where the game was being played but the high companyrt has rightly repelled this companytention on the ground that the search warrant companytained full description of the place and this finding was number assailed before us also.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 36 of 1972.
c. bhandare and m. n. shroff for the respondent.
this appeal by a certificate of the bombay high companyrt is directed against its judgment dated numberember 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.
includes an assistant companymissioner and therefore the provisions of section 6 of the gambling act were fully companyplied with inasmuch as the word companymissioner of police?
this 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.
with this modification only the appeal is dismissed.
k. mehta and k. r. nagaraja for the appellant.
he was also convicted under section 5 of the gambling act and sentenced to 7 days rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs.
apart from this the assistant commissioner companyld also perform those functions which companyld be assigned to him by the companymissioner under the general or special orders of the state government.
16 accused besides the appellant were companyvicted but the appellant alone filed a revision before the high companyrt and an appeal to this companyrt by obtaining a certificate from the high companyrt.
a perusal of section 11 of the police act leads to the inescapable companyclusion that an assistant companymissioner appointed under sub section 1 is to perform such duties and functions as can exercised under the act or any other law for the time being in force which undoubtedly includes the gambling act which was a law in force at the time when the police act was passed.
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.
case turns upon the validity of the search warrant issued by the assistant companymissioner.
the high companyrt appears to have met this argument on the ground that under the provisions of the police act the term companymissioner of police?
this appeal relates to appellant janardhan.
400/ or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.
it was alleged against the appellant that be was keeping a common gaming house in a hut in nagpur which was in his occupation.
the judgments of the companyrt were delivered by fazal ali j. this appeal by certificate granted by the bombay high companyrt raises an interesting question of law as to the ambit scope and interpretation of section 6 of the bombay prevention or gambing act 1887 act number iv of 1887 hereinafter referred to as the gambling act read with the bombay police act 1951 hereinafter referred to as the police act .
501/ .
