Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GOVIND SINGH versus STATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


GOVIND SINGH v STATE - CRLMP Case No. 1304 of 2003 [2007] RD-RJ 4433 (7 September 2007)

CMP 1304/03

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH

S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1304/03

Govind Singh Versus State

DATE OF ORDER :: 07/09/2007

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI

Mr. Anil Jain, for petitioner

Mr. Arun Sharma, P.P.

***

Instant petition has been filed assailing the order dated 30th April, 2002 whereby petitioner was convicted after being held guilty u/s.13 of

Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949 against which he preferred revision petition which was dismissed by the Court of Revision vide order dated 3rd June, 2002.

A written report was submitted by ASI Ramji

Lal at Police Station, Kotwali, Dholpur in which it was alleged that petitioner was indulged in gambling activities and while making announcement, raising slogan "invest one rupee get Rs.90/-". All slips and other material seized from him including a sum of Rs.9440/-. On the basis of said report, FIR No.10/2001 was registered against him and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed against petitioner u/s.13 of Ordinance, 1949. The trial court read over the substance to the accused who denied from allegation and desire to face trial. During

CMP 1304/03 trial, prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses and documents were also placed which were seized from petitioner. After due appreciation of statement recorded during trial and so also the documents exhibited, learned trial Judge held him guilty of committing offence u/s.13 of Ordinance, 1949 and sentenced him fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine, 15 days SI and amount of Rs.9440/- was also ordered to be forfeited against which he preferred revision petition before the Court of Revision which also appreciated the evidence and finally affirmed the said finding as a consequence whereof the same was dismissed on 3rd June, 2002.

This court does not find any error committed by the courts below which calls for interference.

Consequently, misc. petition fails and is hereby dismissed, along with Stay Petition

No.1047/03. [AJAY RASTOGI],J.

FRBOHRA,JR.P.A.1304CMP2003 7-9.doc


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.