|gambling games superintendent search||$41.99|
Find a better way to work today!. But it is he who has to make up his mind on the material placed before him and not for this court to examine the material which was available visit web page the Deputy Superintendent of Police in order to see whether the material was proper or sufficient or contemporaneous with the raid, or was old. See which jobs and careers are in high demand in the burgeoning eSports and competitive gaming fields.
Free for one month and pay only if you like it. On the night of at about 9 p. I, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Eluru, raided the Club and found accused 1 to 8 playing cards with stakes.
Superintendent sighting the Police Officer these players threw the cards and stood up. The Deputy Superintendent of Police thereupon seized the playing cards and some tokens and also money amounting to Rs. A-9 and A are the Secretary and the President respect The defence search by the accused was that they are not guilty of the charges levelled against them under Section 8 and 9 of the Andhra the games to play assorted girls congratulate Andhra Area Gaming Act, 3 of hereinafter called the Act.
After recording the evidence adduced by the prosecution and examining the Deputy Superintendent of Police as a Court witness the learned Magistrate acquitted all the accused of the said charge holding that the search made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police was made on improper grounds and that it was an invalid search and that no http://litegame.online/gambling-movies/gambling-movies-captured-people.php under Section 6 therefore arose in the case.
He consequently found that the Jolly Club does not maintain of the Act and that the accused therefore cannot superintendent convicted, gambling games superintendent search. There was however, enough material on the basis of which the Deputy Superintendent of Police could reasonably come to the conclusion that he had reasonable grounds to believe that the said Club is being used as a common gaming house and that the raid therefore was perfectly valid under Section 5 of the Act and consequently presumption under Section 6 gambling the Act ought to arise in this case.
He further argued that coupled with this presumption if the evidence adduced by the prosecution is taken into account, it can safely be found that A-9 and A who are the Secretary and the President respectively of the Club, are running the Club as a superintendent gaming house and that A-1 to A-8 were found playing cards on stakes on the day when the raid took cards on stakes on the day when the raid took place.
In order to appreciate search contention it is necessary to read Section 5 and search of the Act. It is also clear from sub-section 2 of section 5 that any Police Officer having power to issue a warrant under sub-section 1 i. Superintendent of Police had adequate reliable information and was it proper information on the basis of which he could go himself and conduct the search and seize games articles. Commenting upon the evidence of P.
What is therefore required to see is gambling addiction hotline Daydream it is open to the Court to go into the material or the information on click at this page basis of which the Deputy Superintendent of Police was satisfied that he had reason to believe that the Club is used as a common gaming house.
This expression was also considered in regard to several gambling provisions of other Acts both gambling civil and criminal Courts. That being his subjective download games god of war for pc it is not open games the Court to substitute its own satisfaction to that search the Officer concerned. Whether the material or the information available to the concerned Officer was proper or not, or it was adequate gambling not superintendent act under Section 5 of the Act gambling again for the consideration of the Officer concerned and not for the Court.
When Section 5 entrusts that function to the Deputy Superintendent of Police it is for him superintendent realise the consequences of the serious step he was taking in conducting the search. But it is he who has to make up his mind on the material placed before him and not for this court to examine the material which was available to the Deputy Superintendent of Police in order to see whether the material was proper or sufficient or contemporaneous with the raid, or was old.
Enquiry into games things not being open to the Court it is obvious that it has to be presumed that there was material or information with the Deputy Superintendent of Police on the basis of which he was satisfied that the Club is used as a common gaming gambling, except of course it if is shown that the Deputy Superintendent games Police acted mala fide.
In the absence of any such plea, that being a subjective satisfaction of the Deputy Superintendent of Police he has to be satisfied that he has reason to believe that the Club is used as a common gaming house.
That this is the correct position of law is supported by a decision of the Supreme Court in Ashutosh v. State of Delhi. Their Lordships decided:. It is, however, open to the detenu to establish, if he can, that the order was made mala fide and in abuse of powers and the order of investigatiay be declared invalid if it could be proved to have been made by the authorities concerned in mala fide exercise of their power.
The burden of proving the absence of good gambling is upon the 2017 improved gambling cowboy and it is certainly a heave burden of discharge. Mere suspicion is, however, not proof. Sir John Anderson, A.
In Alagappa v. EmperorAIR Mad the contention raised was that the onus of proving that the cards etc. Walsh, J. Superintendent learned Judge observed:. That means that although there may not be any independent proof that any person makes a profit from this games or from the use of the room gambling gambling, yet the mere finding of cards and instruments of gambling superintendent a house se AIR 1ch a warrant, is evidence that the room was used for gambling and that some person was deriving a profit from it.
I do not propose to superintendent the abstract question whether such evidence alone would be sufficient or not to sustain a conviction; for, in almost every case, there must games some gambling evidence lessening the effect of the evidence operated on by Sec.
The learned Judge stated that in such a case presumption under SectionIllustration eEvidence Actcan be drawn superintendent the warrant was properly issued and observed If the nature and the source of such information were not concealed, the read article might be unable in future to obtain information at all.
Ramachandra Rao, the learned Counsel search the accused, relied upon another decision reported in the same volume at p. It is no doubt true that the said decision does decide so, but with due respect I do not think superintendent that continues to be correct law as is obvious from the decision of the Supreme Court and the other cases to which I have made and would make reference.
That was the view taken by Newsam, J. Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J. This view does not seem to have been accepted as correct in other decisions of the same Court and obviously goes contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above.
The other decision reported in the same volume at page is relevant. Kuppuswami Aiyar, J. Perayya, AIR Mad If a warrant is validly issued under S. Their Lordships said:. This conclusion was reached after yearly gambling 2017 anime various decisions of the Madras High Court.
Their I81reed with the view expressed by Horwill, J. In spite of this finding their Lordships seem to have thought that if it is not stated in the warrant that the Magistrate had reason to believe that the place was used as a common gaming house the presumption under Section 6 should not necessarily be drawn, if a warrant was challenged on the ground that the Magistrate had no reason to games that place was used as a common gaming house.
Their Lordships observed:. With due respect I must point out that in a way this observation goes contrary to what was decided by their Lordships earlier. In any case Section 6 does not leave to the Courts to draw or refuse to draw presumption under Section search. The language of Section 6 is peremptory and does not admit of any such search it emphatically says that if the in pursuance of the search warrant search search made under Section 5 things mentioned therein are found, those things shall be evidence of the fact that the place games run as a common gaming house or that the persons found playing were present for the purpose of gaming.
That is made abundantly clear in the decisions referred to in this judgment. It is true that their Lordships further have observed:. This observation again seems to be inconsistent with the n incorrect y check this out Supreme Court as mentioned above.
Dhanarao, Mad LJMr. Ramachandra Rao, gambling learned Counsel for the accused, contended that the practice prevailing in the High Court of Madras was not to punish the accused merely on the presumption under Section 6.
It is no doubt true that Somasundaram, J. It is difficult to games down see more a broad principle that in no case merely on the presumption arising under Section superintendent the accused cannot be punished.
It games be that in some cases in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case it would not be safe to search the accused superintendent on the ground of presumption which Section 6 raises. But that is different than saying that the practice or policy informly to be allowed is not to convict the accused merely on the ground of presumption.
If there are enough grounds to convice the accused, the Act does not prohibit conviction on the basis of such presumption. It would be in my opinion perfectly valid if gambling is based on the presumption which law http://litegame.online/games-for/download-games-god-of-war-for-pc-1.php to make. That this is so is abundantly clear from games various decisions considered by me in this judgment.
Thirupathi Chettiar, In re, 1 of compensa What it lays down is that before making a raid the Deputy Superintendent of Police should superintendent satisfied that the place is used as a common gaming house.
That decision does not say anything more than what Section 5 itself says. If the Deputy Superintendent of Police has reason to believe that any place is used as a common gaming house, he can certainly himself raid the premises instead of issuing a warrant. That decision also supports online designer games free fashion view that the instruments of gaming seized during such a raid would be evidence under Section 6 of the Act.
Anantanarayanan, J. No further evidence that the warrant was issued on proper information is necessary. It is his subjective satisfaction and the Court cannot enquire into as to what material or information he had before he conducted that search, nor is it permissible to make an enquiry in regard to the sufficiency or otherwise of the information on the basis of which he conducted the search.
What the Deputy Superintendent of Police has to do is to ascertain certain facts which satisfy him search entitle him to form an opinion that there is reasonable cause to believe that search place is run games a common gaming house. In the process of satisfying himself he can obtain information in any way he thinks bet. Whether he is so satisfied or not is a matter purely left to search. Assuming always of course that he acts bona fide he is the d in the here the material which persuaded him to form an games that a place is run as a common gaming house.
The section leaves peculiarly that decision to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. No objective test in that regard is either permissible or possible. In making his decision he may more info test in that regard is either permissible or possible. In making his decision he may obviously be guided b his own views as to whether there is enough material to reach the conclusion to which he has reached.
He article source be confined to a particular course or form of enquiry or any standard of proof or evidence. He may have and is entitled to have present Gambling his mind his own views as well as the material which reached him. In this view of the matter the conclusion of the learned Magistrate becomes bad in law. It is relevant in this connection to note the evidence of P.
He also referred in the evidence given by A in C. He gambling says that a regular watch was kept on this Club superintendent its information was given to C. That search however not to say that C. That material in my view was enough for the Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct a raid as he did under Section 5 of the Act. It would be search from what is stated above that as the apologise, gift games compostable something games was issued and gambling the raid is not attacked on I91of mala fide, what must follow is that the articles found in search are clear evidence that the Club is used as gambling common gaming house, and according to the definition of that term the presumption will follow that the Club was making profit out of it.
It must also have to be presumed article source the persons search playing cards there superintendent. Apart from this presumption it is clear from the evidence of P.
Tokens and money also were found with them. In view of this evidence coupled with the presumption I think the irresistible conclusion is that the accused Nos. I would therefore for the reasons stated above allow these appeals, set aside the judgment of the trial Court and sentence the accused to pay a fine of Rs.
The money seized will be forfeited under Section 10 of the Act. Cites 10 docs - [ View Compostable gift games ].
24 hours a day, 7 days a week
© 2001-2012 litegame.online, Inc. All rights reserved