SUBRAMANIA AYYAR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The six petitioners in this case have been convicted--petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 under Section 9 and petitioner No. 6 under Section 8 of the Madras Gaming Act (III of 1930)--and have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each The learned Magistrate has also confiscated under Section 10, all the moneys found either in front of or on the persons of the various petitioners at the time and at the place searched by the Police.

(2.) Two points arise for consideration in this Criminal Revision Case. The first is whether the warrant under which the room in which the play was going on was searched is or is not legal, and the second is whether the Magistrate was right in ordering the confiscation of the money.

(3.) On the first point great emphasis is laid upon the words to be found in the warrant itself. The warrant begins as follows:--"Whereas information, has been laid before me that certain premises are being used is a common gaming house and gambling is also going on there and it has been made to appear to me that a search of the premises is necessary, I authorise you... to search". It is argued that in this warrant the Stationary Sub-Magistrate who issued it does not say in the words of Section 5 that he had "reason to believe" that the place in question was used as a common gaming house. It seems to me, however, that the mere omission of these particular words in the warrant is by no means conclusive on this matter and the real question is whether as a matter of fact, the Magistrate had or had not reason to believe. I find from Ex. A that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam Town, brought a letter to the Magistrate in which he stated that he was reliably informed that this particular house was used as a common gaming house. This letter was received by the Magistrate, who before issuing any warrant examined the Sub-Inspector of Police on oath and when the Sub- Inspector repeated on oath that the information he had received was true and that he wanted the issue of a warrant, the Magistrate endorsed upon Ex. A. 1. issue warrant under Section 5 of the Gaming Act III of 1930". It seems to me impossible to argue on a consideration of these facts that the Magistrate was not aware of the serious nature of the step he was taking and that he had no reason to believe that the information which was given him was true. It appears to me, therefore, that the warrant which was issued satisfies the provision of Section 5 of the Act.