EMPEROR Vs. TULSHI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision No. 210, and the other criminal revisions Nos. 205, 206, 209 arid 211, deal with two incidents of satta gambling. The cases Nos. 206, 209, 210 and 211 are the cases of Tulsi Das, Lachmi Narain, Budha, Thakur Das and Nehal Chand. The case No. 205 is that of Ghisa, Pershadi, Manohar and Kallu.

(2.) To deal now with the case No. 210, this man, Tulshi Das, was charged with a number of others with gambling in the satta form, i.e., with betting or taking bets on opium price figures, in a public place--an offence under Section 13 of the Gambling Act, III of 1867, as amended by the United Provinces Act I of 1917. The section, as amended, reads: "any person found gaming in any public street, place or thoroughfare," and by the same Acts "gaming" includes "wagering." The nine men, whose cases are before me, were, in their respective two groups, charged in effect with being book makers, i.e. with keeping premises for the purposes of betting and themselves taking bets therein. They have been sentenced to a month's imprisonment each. A number of those who went there merely for the purpose of making bets were sentenced to various fines. Those others have not applied to this Court in revision.

(3.) The principal accused avowedly (vide the terms of their lease) took a lease of the premises concerned for the express purpose of carrying on the business which forms the subject of the charge. The "place" in question consists of an enclosure within a larger enclosure, and the public street runs along one side of the larger enclosure, and the "place," if used in the ordinary way as a place of residence, would undoubtedly be a "private" place. I mention these facts, because reliance has been placed on them by the defence, but in the view that I take, the construction of the place is wholly immaterial. The only question here is, "Did the accused by their action convert this place into a public place within the meaning of the Gambling Act?"