EMPEROR Vs. VAZIRALLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the accused is tried on a charge under Section 291 A (second part) of the Indian Penal Code for publishing a proposal for the drawing of a lottery. The accused, who is the proprietor of the British Cigarette and Tobacco Co., published 22,000 handbills advertising a prize of Rs. 5 which could automatically be obtained by purchasers of Park Drive Cigarettes. Ex. B is one of such handbills. It appears that ten currency notes of Rs. 5 each were sent to the manufacturers of Park Drive Cigarettes at Belfast, who pat in a note of Rs. 5 in each of ten packets of cigarettes. The ten packets were mixed with other packets and subsequently packed in 50 cases and dispatched to the accused who is the sole agent for the cigarettes in India, The question is whether the whole scheme is a lottery.

(2.) In Taylor V/s. Smetten (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 207 Hawkins J., accepting the definition of lottery as a distribution of prizes by lot or chance, held that selling of packets of good tea at a price worth the money but in each packet of which was a coupon entitling the purchaser to receive a prize (whatever it might turn out to be) mentioned on such coupon, was a lottery within the statute 42 Geo. III, c. 119. It was further held that it was utterly immaterial whether a specific article was or was not conjoined with the chance and as the subject-matter of the sale. In Willis V/s. Young and Stem-bridge [1907] 1 K.B. 448 it was held that the scheme of distribution of chances Could amount to a lottery when all chances were paid for by the general body of purchasers although am individual purchaser may not have paid for his chance. The present case closely resembles the case of Hunt V/s. Williams (1888) 52 J.P. 821, where a person kept a sweetstuff shop and sold penny packets of American caramel of which several packets contained a half penny in addition to a fair penny worth of sweets, it was held that that amounted to an offence of keeping a lottery. We think, therefore, that the scheme of the accused in the present case of distribution of prizes by lot or chance amounted to a lottery.

(3.) The question is whether the act of the accused falls within the second part of Section 294 A. The first part of Section 294 A refers to keeping any office or place for the purpose of drawing any lottery not authorised by Government. The second part of Section 294 A refers to publishing any proposal to pay any sum on any event or contingency relative to the drawing of any such lot in any such lottery. It is urged on behalf of the accused that there is no drawing of a ticket, lot, number or figure in the lottery in question, Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Emperor V/s. Muhandi Lal (1917) 18 Cr. L.J. 768, where it was held that the word drawing " is used in the section in its physical sense and the actual drawing of lots is an essential ingredient of the offence provided for in Section 294 A, Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate held : "There was certainly no drawing of any ticket of cigarettes. The purchaser when he buys the packet buys or draws the packet and the chance of the prize contained in it. The distribution of the prizes would not be according to a number of coupons. The distribution of the prize is by chance and depends upon the purchaser drawing the right packet. " It was held in Kamakshi Achari V/s. Appauu. Pillai (1863) I.M.C.R. 418 that lotteries ordinarily understood are games of chance in which the event of either gain or loss of the absolute right to a prize or prizes by the persons concerned, is made wholly dependent upon the drawing or casting of lots, and the necessary effect of which is to beget a spirit of speculation and gaming that is often productive of serious evils. The first part of Section 294 A refers to keeping an office or place for the purpose of drawing any lottery. The second part refers to a proposal to pay any money etc. on any event or contingency relative to the drawing of any ticket, lot, number or figure in a lottery.