EMPEROR Vs. ATMA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Atma Ram was convicted by the District Magistrate of Dehra Dun under Section 3 of the Public Gambling Act (Act No. III of 1867) as amended by Act No. I of 1917 of the Local Legislature and sentenced to pay a fine. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge of Saharanpur. He then filed a revision in this Court on the ground that the conviction was untenable having regard to two recent decisions of this Court which will be referred to hereafter. The case has been referred to a Full Bench. The order of reference is as follows: "Having regard to the very singular form in which "common gaming house" has been defined and to the decisions in Lachhi Ram V/s. King-Emperor (1922) 20 A.L.J. 218 and Emperor V/s. Durga Prasad (1923) I.L.R. 45 All. 258, I think it desirable to appoint a Full Bench to consider whether on a-fair construction of the words used for the profit or gain of the person owning , the acts done by Atma Ram are sufficient to support the conviction or whether the language of the definition is inapt and insufficient."

(2.) The judgment of the trial court is somewhat involved and it is not easy to find from it what are the real facts of the case. After a careful examination of the judgment on appeal and the evidence on the record, it is possible to arrive at a conclusion as to what the facts actually were. Once these facts are ascertained, we have no hesitation in holding that the conviction was justified.

(3.) The law regulating public gambling in these provinces was Act No. III of 1867 and it proved for nearly 50 years to be adequate. In 1910, however, a new form of gambling came into fashion and rapidly increased in popularity. This was known as Satta gambling. The public were invited to guess what would be the last two digits or the last digit or the average price of a chest of opium at the monthly sale in Calcutta.