Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Gujarat vs Jivanlal Bhimjibhai And Anr. on 5 December, 1967

State Of Gujarat vs Mohandas Manumal And Ors. on 27 February, 1978

This would ex-facie show that the private lottery and falling within these three specified categories of cases were all banned arid declared unlawful under Section 3 of the Act. Keeping in mind these features we feel no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that risk of loss is not a necessary element of a lottery as understood in the context of English and Indian cases as well as the recent Legislation viz. the Act. We, however, find that A.D. Desai, J. sitting singly in State v. Jayantilal Bhimjibhai 9 G.L.R. 603 considered risk of loss also as one of the four essential elements. He based himself upon the following observations in Halsbury's Laws of England contained in paragraph 460:
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ashokkumar Amrutlal Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 29 October, 2002

16. It was vehemently argued by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the School Leaving Certificate cannot be considered as reliable evidence for age of the prosecutrix. Learned Advocate was justified in making this submission because in case of State of Gujarat v. Jivanlal Chhotalal (supra) it was observed that School Leaving Certificate for the purpose of proving the age in a criminal trial is useless, but it has to be observed that in that case even as per the prosecutrix, her age was 17 years at the time of the incident. The school registers produced were not supported by original material as regards the dated of birth. The School Certificate produced before the Court was on the basis of a certificate issued by a previous school and on what basis the entry was made by the previous school was not on record, and the Court therefore, observed that School Leaving Certificate is useless. It also has to be observed that the Court was then dealing with an appeal against acquittal.
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A L Dave - Full Document

Wimco Ltd. vs Liberty Match Co. And Ors. on 7 July, 1988

11. So far as the first element is concerned, there is no contro-versy that the scheme offers a prize inasmuch as a purchaser gets a coupon of a denomination between Re. 1/- and Rs. 25/-. So far as the second element of distribution by chance is concerned it was of course contended that there is no element of chance because each purchaser of the container under the scheme gets a coupon. However, element of chance cannot be gainsaid inasmuch as although every purchaser of the container under the scheme gets a coupon, he does not get the coupon of the same denomination, but the denomination may vary between Re. 1/- to Rs. 25/-. It is in the fact of different denominations of the coupons that the element of chance gets in. The remaining elements are indeed required to be considered, as to whether a person who purchases a container and gets a coupon pays any consideration for the coupon because it is an admitted position that even without the benefit of a coupon, the container contains matches of the quality which is commensurate with its price. The fourth element is risk of loss, which, it is contended, is absent in the scheme. The Division Bench took the view that for deciding the question whether a particular scheme is a lottery or not, the fourth element, namely, risk of loss is not an essential element and in so holding they dissented from the view taken by a single Judge of this Court (Coram: A.D. Desai, J.) in State v. Jayantilal Bhimjibhai [1968] 9 GLR 603, that risk of loss is also one of the four essential elements to constitute lottery. The Division Bench observed that it may be that a person who gets the prize wholly gratuitously, risks nothing. But that does not lead one to a conclusion that in a scheme where distribution of prizes is made unequally depending on mere chance, the fact that the subscriber gets at the end of the scheme what he has contributed and therefore does not risk anything, would not be a lottery. The Division Bench held that the decided cases referred in that judgment did not lead to the conclusion that the risk of loss, though it may be present in great variety of cases is a necessary element of lottery. It is seen above that the first two elements of lottery are satisfied, namely, a purchaser of a container gets a prize or some advantage in the nature of a prize and that the distribution is by a chance, since the denominations of the coupon are different from Re. 1/- to Rs. 25/-. It is a matter only of chance whether a purchaser would get a coupon of Re. 1/- worth or Rs. 25/- worth. So far as the third element of payment of consideration is concerned, reference may be made to the discussion by the Division Bench at Paragraph 8 of its judgment. It is observed as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1