RAM ASREY AHIR Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Asrey applicant was convicted by a learned Magistrate of Basti under Section 13, Public Gambling Act and was sentenced to a fine of us. 30.

(2.) The only point which has been urged by learned Counsel for the applicant is that the applicant cannot, in view of the authorities, be held to have been gambling in a "public place" within the meaning of Section 13 of the Act. Reliance has been placed upon a number of authorities. . In the present case the applicant was found gambling in a grove belonging to a zamindar. It appears from the site plan that to the north and the south of the place where the gambling was going on, there are public pathways. From the evidence of the Head Constable, it appears that these pathways are at a distance of only one pace from the scene of the occurrence. Further towards the south at a short distance there is a kuchcha road running from Bansi to Tewaripur.

(3.) The first case relied upon is Emperor v. Ajudhia Prasad, 1904 A. w. N. 92. In that case the gambling was going on in a grove belonging to, the zamindars, to which the public had not access as of right, though they might in fact. There was a path running. through the grove which was commonly used by people of the neighbourhood without any interference on the. part of the zamindars. The gambling did not take place on the path, but in the grove at a short distance from it. It was held that the gambling did not take place In a public place.