EMPEROR Vs. FARDUNJI CGORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the two accused were charged under Section 12 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, IV of 1887, in the Court of the Honorary Presidency Magistrate, Girgaum, Bombay. [His Lordship, after setting out the facts, continued :]

(2.) The accused were tried by a Bench of Honorary Magistrates consisting of two Honorary Magistrates, Mr. Kapadia and Mr. Turkhud. Mr. Kapadia wrote and signed the judgment aquitting the accused, and subsequently made a remark that he understood from his colleague Mr. Turkhud that he differed from him on points of law as well as of fact, and that he was not bound to record this note of dissent. The accused were, therefore, acquitted according to the judgment of Mr. Kapadia whose opinion as Chairman prevailed. An appeal has been filed by the Government of Bombay against the order of acquittal, and at the time of the admission, the judgment of Mr. Turkhud was sent for in accordance with the prayer in the memo of appeal.

(3.) The first question that arises in the case is whether the judgment of the dissenting Honorary Magistrate forms part of the record.