GANGADAS BANERJEE Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have been convicted under Section 3 and 4, Bengal Public Gambling Act (Act 3 B.C. of 1867), petitioner 1 under Section 3 and air the other petitioners under Section 4 of the said Act. The question for consideration in this rule is whether the convictions are supportable in so far as they are based upon finding that the place where gambling used to go on was a common gaming house within the meaning of the Act. Offences under Secs.3 and 4 have for their foundation as one of the ingredients the fact that the place where gaming goes on is a common gaming house within the meaning of the definition given in Section 1.

(2.) As regards this matter the learned Sessions Judge held in the first instance that: petitioner 1 or those who were interested in the venture along with him have not been proved by any evidence to have either drawn commission or worked so as to ensure more or less certain profits.

(3.) He found, however, that instruments of gaming were found in the premises which were in the occupaton of petitioner 1, who is said to be the lessee of the premises; and as those instruments were found on a search purporting to have been carried out under the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, he applied to the case the presumption provided for in Section 6 thereof. The said presumption is to the effect that when instruments of gaming are found in a place searched in accordance with a warrant issued under Section 5, the place is to be regarded as a common gaming house until the contrary is proved. The question, therefor, is whether the presumption upon which the learned Judge has relied really arises in the present case.