EMPEROR Vs. FATTOO MAHOMED SHER MAHOMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the two petitioners have been convicted under Section 4(a) and (c) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act (Bombay Act IV of 1887), the petitioner No. 1 being the owner or occupier or having the use of a house, room or place and keeping or using the same for the purpose of a common gaming house, and petitioner No. 2 having assisted in conducting the business of such house, room or place.

(2.) The only point upon which the propriety of the convictions is challenged on behalf of the petitioners is whether the particular spot on which the petitioners and the others were found to be gaming may be rightly described as a "place" within the meaning of Section 4(a) of the Bombay Act.

(3.) The facts are that this particular spot resembles in all essentials what is usually known in this country as a chok. It is a small open space surrounded by houses on all sides and is accessible only by a narrow lane on which is a signboard pointing to the chok. Of this space the first applicant is the lessee in occupation. At the time the alleged offence was committed the spot was open to the sky, though shortly before the date of the alleged offence there had been standing on the spot a zinc roofed shed. That, however, had been removed, perhaps only temporarily removed, before the date of the alleged offence. In these circumstances we have to decide whether such a spot is a place within Section 4 of the Act. That section provides for the punishment of any person who, being the owner or occupier or having the use of any house, room or place opens, keeps, or uses the same for the purpose of a common gaming house.