LexKISHAN CHANDER versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 765 whicn the Privy Council was concerned, and in construing the said clause, the Privy Council observed that "the phrase "made und~r this Act" describes the provenance of the assessment : it does not relate to its accuracy in point of law. The use of the machinery provided by the Act, not the result of that use, is the test." These two Privy Council's decisions support the conclusion that having regard to the scheme of the Act, s. 18-A must be deemed to exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain claim1 like the present. In the result, we must hold that the view taken by the High Court is right and so, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There would be no order as to '°'''· Appeal diamisaed. KISHAN CHANDER ". STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ' . (P. B. GAJENDBA.GA.DKAB, K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYA.TULLA.H, K. C. DAB GUPTA and J. C. SHAH, JJ.) • Ultra Virea-Principle of-001Mlitution of Ind · Arla. 13, '19, 21,-The United State of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa (Madhya Bharat) Gambling Act, samvat 2006 (Madhya Bharat Act No. 61of1949), ss. 6, 8. The three appcllanta with five others were tried for offenceo under s. 4of the United State of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa (Madhya Bharat) Gamblin~ Act and sentenced to imprison- ment. The Scssioiu Judge rejected their ''""'lCals. The High 1913 Firm and llluri Subbay_1a Chetty & Sons v. I he State of Andhra Pradesh Gajtndr11gadkar1 J. 1963 January, 25. ',, .' '1963 K"..Jwn Clumd"' v. State oj Madhya Prad1sh ' . 766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964) VOL. Court rejected their revlsion petititi~,;:~.~They eame to this Court by Special Leave. · The only point urged· before this c_ourt was that ss. 6 and 8" of the Gambling Act were ultra ~""! the Constitution and against the principles of natural JUSl!ce and funda'llentals of criminal jurisprudence. . · Held, that ss. 6 and 8 of th~ Act were not ultra vire& the Constitution. ·.The Act is not unreasonable in its restrictions ··upon the fundamental rfa;hts of the people. There is nothing in the definition of 'gamoling' to make it unreasonable or to ofrend against any of the guaranteed rfa:hts. The definition of a . •gaming . house'. is . ·no doubt wide and there is not only a long li•t of places which come within the expression .'gaming . hOtilie' but the term includes any place which answers the rest of the descriptit>n. In spite of this, there is nothing unreason• able or which does not subserve ·the central purpose. The Act provides safeguards . against vittimization of innocent persons by putting certain. checks when· it provides for the. detection and prosecution of offenders· against the Act. The power to . enter and authorise the police to enter and search places believed to be ~min~ houses is. given to _superior officers who are expected to act reasonably and after due satisfaction. M oreovet, the officer who enters the building and seizes the articles ha,-to satisf~ the Court th~t his suspicions were based on reasonable ground• and it i• only then that the burden~is shifted to the accu\ed to prove his innocence . .. Thou~h the word u-;ed ins. 6 is ''suspectirig", in actual proof this suspicion must be denii'l~trated to be reasonably based. Considerin'."f the fa.ct that g:\mhling is an evil which is rampant and gaming houses . flourish as. a prl"lfitable business and detec- . tion of gambling is extremely difficult, the law to root out · gambling cannot but be in the public interest. · Such a law · must of necesdty provide for a special ·procedure. So. Ion~ as it is not arbitrary and contains adequate saf1"''.1'Uards, it cannot be succe,.fully a"ailed. The Act cont•in• sufficient ,.feguard., to ensure that th~re ij n'> dln~er t,, a1Y one except ·to, those who are proved to the ,.tr.faction of the Court to keep a g•ming house or who can be presumed, unless ·the contrary fa proved, to be there for the purpo•e of\ gaming. · CRillIINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION·: Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1961. · · · · · Appeal bv special leave from the Judgment and . order dated December 14, 1960, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench at Gwalior) in Criminal Revision No. 91/59. , 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 767 R. L. Kohli and 0. L. Sarin, for the appellants. I. N. Shroff, for the respondent. 1963. January 25. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 196$ Kislwn Chand,r v. Stat1 of Madhya Prad.1h HIDA
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.