Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)Section 342 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Public Gambling Act, 1867
Tarun Sen Deka And Ors. vs The State on 20 January, 1949
In so far as Tar Sen Lal's case, is concerned even on facts it is not quite parallel to the present case, which is a more clear and a strong case as will appear presently.
Section 4 in The Public Gambling Act, 1867 [Entire Act]
State vs Jai Prakash on 4 August, 1958
This has been approved by a Division Bench in State v. Jai liisnan, Criminal Appeal No. 1195 of 1961, D/- 35-10-1962 (Punj) and has also been followed in MuUdi Kaj v. btate, Criminal mien.
The State vs Banu Ram And Sanwara Ram And Anr. on 6 December, 1960
The learned Chief Justice also points out that the slips recovered, as in the present case, in that case, referred to sums of money in connection with numbers of either two or one digit and one of the documents, as a piece of paper P. 4 in the present case, appeared to be summarised account of various sums laid by different people on certain numbers and while the accused denied that those documents related to satta gambling they had not offered any alternative explanation as to what they might have referred, and held that those documents amounted to "Instruments of gaming" within the meaning of that expression in Section 1 of Punjab Public Gambling Act, 1929 (Punjab Act 1 of 1929) in which the expression 'Instruments of gaming' is defined to include, among other matters, "any document used as a register or record or evidence of any gaming".
Qabul Singh vs Emperor on 26 April, 1940
Same view with regard to such documents has prevailed in Qabul Singh v. Emperor AIR 1940 All 412. So the manner and method of dara or dara-satta gambling has been judicially noticed and with slight variation the method of betting is the same. There are two manners of betting. One manner is to hat on one of the numbers from 1 to 100 or from of to 99, and when the number staked on is drawn the payment ordinarily is 80 to 1 as pointed out by my Lord the Chief Justice. An instance will be helpful.
Lachhi Ram And Anr. vs Emperor on 26 April, 1933
This is called betting on haraf, to which reference has been made in Lachhi Ram's case, 1933-31 AH LJ 1354: (AIR 1933 All 554)-
1