BURHA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants have been convicted under Secs.3 and 4, U.P. Public Gambling Act, and three of them have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75 each, and the others to pay fines of Rs. 50 each, and in default to undergo one week's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the applicants had urged that the conviction must be set aside as the case was tried by the learned City Magistrate of Benares who had issued the warrant for the search of the premises where the gambling was taking place. It is a fact that Mr. B.B. Lal, City Magistrate, Benares, had issued the search warrant and the case was tried by him, but no such objection to his trying the case was taken at the trial, nor was any such point raised before the learned Sessions Judge in the appeal against the order of the learned City Magistrate. Learned Counsel has, however, urged that the trial is illegal and it cannot, therefore, stand and the case must be sent back for a retrial. I do not agree with his contention that the trial is illegal.

(3.) It is true that in Raja Ram V/s. Emperor ( 24) 11 A.I.R. 1924 Lah. 247, Zafar Ali J., has held that the accused was materially prejudiced as the trial had been held by the Magistrate who had issued the warrant, but the point is not further discussed as the conviction was set aside on other grounds.