Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

BHIMRAO TRIMBAKRAO INGLE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided
19 August 1986
Judges listed
M.P. THAKKAR (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1986] 3 S.C.R. 613 · 1986 INSC 175
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

THAKKAR, J. Whether or not it was a 'common gaming house'' is the question. Not is the answer.

p. 614, margin C

The appellants were convicted for an offence under Section 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 (hereinafter called 'the Act') as it stood in 1972 for being found in a 'common gaming house' where they had assembled for the purpose of gaming. Appellant no. 6 . was also convicted for an offence under Section 4 of the Act, for using a room as a common gaming house. The Sessions Court exercising appellate jurisdiction came to the conclusion that the gaming was taking place in an office of the (Agricultural) Soil Conservation Department and that the room in which the gaming was taking place was not a 'common gaming house' within the meaning of Section 3(ii)' of the Act. On reaclting the conclusion that it was not a 'common gaming house', the Sessions Court came to the conclusion that the offence committed by Appellant No~ 6 would not fall under Section 4 of the Act.

p. 614, margin D

The Sessions Court, however, recorded a finding of guilt against ~y

p. 614, margin F

(ii): gaming are kept or used for the profit or gain of the owning, occupying, using or keeping such house, room or place of charge for use of such house, room or place or instruments or otherwise howsoever." the appellants including Appellant No. 6 for an offence under SectiQn 5 of ihe Act seeking support from Section 7 of the Act which provides for presumptive proof of keeping or gaming in a common gaming house.

pp. 614–615, margin G

Even though on· an appreciatwn of evidence adduced by the prosecution the Sessions Court came to the conclusion thai the pro· ·secution had failed to establish that Appellant No. 6 was deriving any profit or gain by way of charges for the use of the room in question and that accordingly it was not a 'common gaming house', the Court strangely enough held that it was a common gaming house within the meaning of Section 3(ii) of the Act by reason of the presumption under Section 7 of the Act. What was held to be 'not' a 'Common Gaming House', having regard to the fact that evidence adduced by the pro· .secution was considered unacceptable could not have been held to be a common gaming house by recourse to the presumption undi:r section 7. The presumption is a rebuttable presumption which was not re· quired to be rebutted by the defence inasmuch as the proseuction evidence was discredited and rejected and the presumption stood re· butted on that account. What is not a 'common gaming house' in fact in the light of evidence cannot become a common gaming hous~ by reason of a presumption under section 7. The reason is neither far to seek nor obsecure. What the prosecution is required to establish by recourse to the presumption is that the room is a 'common gaming house' as defined in the dictionary of Section 3(ii) that is to say that the occupier is collecting charges for the use of the room. When evidence is adduced and the prosecution fails to establish that such charges are in fact collected, how can the Court hold in the face of its own finding that such charges are collected, that even so it is a 'common gaming house' because of the presumption? The Sessions Court was in error in convicting the appellants for an offence under Section 5 which can be committed only provided the.persons concerned were gaming or were present for the purpose of gaming in a 'common gaming house'. The High Court was in error in failing to appreciate the import of the said

p. 615, margin A

if ~he th~ instrume~t tb~ th~m.

p. 615, margin G

finding recorded by the Court on the basis of the appreciation of evidence that in fact it was not a 'common gaming house' as found by the Sessions Court, and confirmed by the High Court. None of the appellants could therefore be convicted for an offence under Section )I

p. 616, margin A

The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The order of conviction and sentence is set aside. A.P . .I. Appeal allowed.

p. 616, margin B

which extend six months with ....

p. 616, margin B