MOHANLAL Vs. HYDERABAD STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the prosecution was that three persons Devi Pershad, Mohanlal and Shivalal wagered in the business of Sengdana (groundnuts) on various dates towards the end of 1945. The prosecution contended that through certain brokers they contracted to deal in differences, that is to say, that they fixed some dates in future and undertook payment of the difference in price between the price on the date they bet and the stipulated date. On these allegations it was stated by the prosecution that the aforesaid three persons were liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act 2 of 1305 F.

(2.) AFTER the accused were summoned, the lower Court recorded their statements under Section 211, Hyderabad Criminal Procedure Code. The accused denied the guilt. The Vakil for the accused contended that the acts imputed to the accused even if they be proved, could never constitute an offence under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act. The lower Court heard the arguments of the parties and disagreed with the Vakil for the accused and came to the conclusion that it was necessary that further evidence had to be taken, before arriving at the proper result. It is against this order that three revisions have been filed in this Court.

(3.) WE heard the. Advocate for the petitioners in support of the petitions and the public prosecutor on the other side. The Act aims principally at preventing gambling in a public place and the keeping of common gambling houses. It has also to be observed the Gambling Act being one of a penal character, must be construed strictly. The language of the Act must not be unduly strained so as to cover a case which would not directly come under any provision of the Act. Gambling is not an offence 'per se' unless it is carried on in a common gaming house or in a public street, place or thoroughfare.