Rajasthan prevention of gambling ordinance 1949. Chimanlal vs The State on 5 August,
In view of the aforesaid clear position of law, it cannot be said that the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, lapsed unless it was enacted into law by Legislative Assembly. The application for revision is partly allowed.
The currency note had been indian casino monterey by Shri Bahadur Singh. Before closing I may note that in this case also it has been proved by Shri Bahadur Singh that the form of gaming which was indulged in at the stall of the applicant was the betting on American futures.
When the Constitution was inaugurated in terms of Articleuntil it is so altered or repealed or modified by a competent legislature or other authority, the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, continued to remain In force. In the Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary, "bet" means, "a wager: Learned counsel relied on certain decisions of the Supreme Court in which it has been held that examination under SectionCr.
A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the like question raised in connection with the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, which had been framed in exercise of the same power namely para 3 of Article 10 of the Covenant. It has not been proved in this case that when the search was made the applicant was found playing or gaming with cards or was found there present for the purpose of gaming.
The full legislative power vested in Raj Pramukh under the covenant which founded the United States of Rajasthan and which provided its charter until legislative assembly was duly constituted for the State under the covenant, the Raj Pramukh was to exercise legislative function of the State. The finding that the punter had staked the currency note on certain figures, and that the currency note was recovered from the stall of the applicant, on search by the Sub-Inspector, Shri Bahadur Singh, are findings of fact, and are based on evidence, which has been believed by the trying Magistrate, This Court is not sitting as a court of appeal, and as a court of revision it would not be justified in interfering with these findings of fact, unless they were perverse or were such as no reasonable man would have recorded on the evidence produced in the case.
It may be mentioned that at the time of the delivery of the initialled currency note by Shri Bahadur Singh to the punter, a memo Ex. First of all I may take up the question whether the applicant has in any way been prejudiced by omission to put a question as to the purpose for which the currency note was handed over to him by the punter.
Under the Bombay Act, which was in question, "instrument of gaming" and "gaming house" bore the same definitions which they bear under the Rajasthan Gambling Ordinance.
The word "bet" in Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, means, rajasthan prevention of gambling ordinance 1949 alia, staking or pledging as between two parties upon the event of a contest or any contingent issue. Obviously, it was in exercise of absolute authority of the legislature that the Raj Pramukh has enacted the Public Gambling Ordinance, There is no doubt that the only question that was put was whether the said currency note was recovered from his shop, and he replied in the negative.
Under Section 2 2 of the Gambling Ordinance "gaming" includes wagering or betting. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel. The applicant went in revision to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, but his revision was dismissed. Lastly coming to the question whether the conviction is bad, because the punter did not state as to what would have been the extent of his gain, had the result been in his favour, and what would have been the extent of loss, if the result were against him, I find that it was not incumbent upon the prosecution to prove as to what would have been the extent of such loss or gain.
Therefore it was not a case of betting. Under the circumstances, the sentence is reduced to a fine of Rs.
Further it was argued that it had not been proved at all as to what gain would have been made by the punter if the result had been in his favour, or what loss he would have sustained, if it would have been against him. This clearly means that the punter was to suffer a loss if the result went against him, and made some gain if it went in his favour.
However, procedural law is meant for holding, in the just decision of the case, and any non-compliance with those provisions, unless they go to the root of the matter, will not be sufficient to quash a conviction or any other order of the lower courts unless it has occasioned a failure of justice. Learned counsel argued that in that case it was proved as to what would be the loss and what would ibm x3550 m5 memory slots the gain in case the punter lost or won.
Reliance was placed upon a ruling of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Chikkarange Gowda v. I, therefore, do not think that any prejudice has been caused to the applicant by the omission to put any further question to him under SectionCr.
State of Mysorecited above, held that the compliance with the provisions of SectionCr. The currency note in question comes in the definition of an instrument of gaming within the meaning of Section 2 3 of the Gambling Ordinance.
As the applicant was found inside that house, he was also guilty of the offence under Section 4 of the Gambling Ordinance, and his conviction under both the Sections is quite proper. Finally it was argued that the examination of the applicant under Section of the Code of Criminal Procedure was highly defective which has prejudiced the applicant, and, therefore, on all the above counts the conviction should not be sustained.
Likewise, in Jeevan Ram v.
Sections, and are the provisions which condone certain irregularities, unless thereby a failure of justice has been occasioned. It has been argued by Mr. It is certainly expected of the courts trying criminal cases that proper compliance be made of the provisions of SectionCr.
Raghubardayal RLW page 99 that the Ordinance issued in exercise of power under para 3 of the Covenant was as per existing law within the meaning of Article and continued to remain in force after the commencement of the Constitution. It was handed over by the punter to the applicant with the purpose of staking, and it was recovered from the shop of the applicant on search under a warrant under Section 5 of the Gambling Ordinance.
As a matter of fact in view of the answer that he had given to this question, there was no necessity to put him the question as to for what purpose he had received the note. It was held that the marked coins were an instrument of gaming, as they were used as a means of gaming.