Tulshi Das vs Emperor on 19 May, 1924
13. There remains only the question of sentence. The accused plead that they did not know that they were breaking the law. I have held that they were breaking the law, and it appears to me that it had really been quite clear ever since the ruling of Mr. Justice Stuart in Sukhnandan Singh v. Emperor 65 Ind. Cas. 419 : 20 A.L.J. 80 : 23 Cr. L.J. 67 : 14 A. 265; (1922) A.I.R. (A.) 542 decided on December 16th 1921, which, though it referred to gambling of a different type, specifically dealt with the phrase "in a public place." Apart from what may have been the law, it is clear that the accused at least knew that they were doing some thing, which the law had intended to forbid; and, being badly advised that there was a loop hole, deliberately tried to take advantage of it. It is clear that they have done a very great deal of mischief; and, if the case rested there, I would maintain the sentence as it stands; but it also seems that some, at least, of that mischief would have been prevented if the Police had taken action sooner. While, therefore, I think that a fine of Rs. 50 is adequate in the case of the men who merely took advantage of the facilities provided by these accused and went to bet, I think it would be wholly inadequate in the case of the men who, for their own profit, deliberately provided those facilities. I reduce the sentence in the case of each of these nine men to a period of two weeks simple imprisonment. Some, if not all, of the applicants have already served several days. They will surrender to their bail and serve the remainder.