LexSINDHI LOHANA CHAITHRAM versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H SINDW LOHANA CHAITHRAM v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT March 31, 1967 [R. S. BACHAWAT AND J. M. SHBLAT, JJ.] Bombay Prevemio1< of Gambling Act, 1887, s. 6(1) (i) and s, 7.- Auihority lo Deputy Superintendent of Police to issue search warrant to sub-inspector-Notification conferring such authority whether must men- 1io11 Deputy Superintendent by >iume-Presumption under s. 7 when nrises, Under s. 6(l)(i) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, a search warrant can be issued by a Deputy Superintendent of Police especially empowered in this behalf. By a notification dated January 22, 1955 the Saurashtra Government empowered specially certain AsSistant Superintendents and Deputy Superintendents of Police Porbandar Divi· sion, Porbandar, to authorise by issue of special warrants in each case a police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector of police to do tibe various things necessary in order to raid a house when the police officer suspected gaming to be carried on and which house room or place was suspected as being used as a common gaming house. The appellant's house was raided by a sub-inspector of police and on the basis of in- criminating evidence the appellant and six others were charged under ss. 4 and 6 of the Act. At the trial the accused contended that Shri Pandya the Deputy Superintendent of Porbandar who issued the search warrant was not authorised to do so and accepting their plea the magis· trate acquired them. The High Court however took the opposite view and convicted the accused. The appellant came to this Court by special leave. HELD : (i) When a power is conferred on a person by name or by virtue of his office the individual designated by name or as the holder of the office for the time being is empowered specially. Judged by this test the notification· dated January 22, 1955 specially empowered Shri Panclya holder of the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Por- bandar to issue the search warrant under s. 6. [353F-G] Emperor v. Udlto and Ors., A.J.R. 1943 Sind. 107, E111peror v .. Sav/aram Kaslii1uirh Joshi, 49 B.L.R, 798, Aluga Pillai v. E111peror, A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 256, Mahomad Kasi111 & Am•. v. Emperor, A.l.R. 1915 Mad. 1159, State of Mysore v. Kashambi, ( 1963) 2 Cr. L.J. 226, State v. illdlwhir Clietri, A.J.R. 1953 Assam 35, K. N. VijayO/l v. State, J.L.R. 1953 Trav. Cochin 514 and Po/ubha Vajub/la & Anr. v. Tapu Ruda, A.J.k. 1956 Saurashtra 73, referred to. (ii) The· seizure of instruments of gaming in the appellant's house under s. 6 raises a presumption under s. 7 that the hoU&e was used as a common gaming house and the persons found thereia '"''ere then pre- sent for the purpose of gaming. In applying this artificial presumption the court should act with circumspection. Playing cards can be kept and used for innocent pn-;time. The presun1ption can he rebutted if from the prosecution evidence itself it is apparent tho.t there was a reasonable probability of the playing cards not being kept or used as means of gam- ing or for profit or gain of the occupier ot t.he house. In the present case the appellant could not successfully rebut the presumption. [354E-HJ ' 362 SUP&BMB COURT Rl!PORT5 [1967] 3 s.c.R. No prejudice had been caused to the appellant by the production of the notification dated January 22, 1955 for the first time at the appellate 1taae [3SSAJ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1964. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 16, 1963 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 1962. Daniel A. Latifi and K. K. Sinha, for the appellant. Hans Raj Khanna and R. N. Sachthey for R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. The appellant and six other persons were charg- ed under ss. 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act 1887. The sub-inspector of police Shri Anjaria received informa- tion that the appellant was keeping a common gaming house. He obtained a special search warrant from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Porbandar, Shri S. M. Pandya, and raided the appel- lant's house in Bantwa on June 4, 1961 at 1 p.m. The raiding party found the door leading to the upper floor closed. The in- mates pressed against the door from the inside and did not open it until a blacksmith broke open the latch. Shri Anjaria seized torn and burnt pieces of playing cards
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.