1978 (4) TMI 242 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms conviction, reduces sentence, validates search warrant under Gambling Act

Janardhan Versus State Of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Sections 4 and 5 of the Gambling Act but reduced the imprisonment sentence to time served, ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the search warrant issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police under Section 6 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887.2. Interpretation of the term 'Commissioner of Police' in the context of the Gambling Act and the Police Act.3. Applicability of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1886, to the interpretation of the Gambling Act.4. Legality of the assignment of powers by the Commissioner of Police to the Assistant Commissioner under the Police Act.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Search Warrant:The appellant was convicted under Sections 4 and 5 of the Gambling Act and challenged the validity of the search warrant issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. The appellant argued that the search warrant was legally invalid as it was not issued by the Commissioner of Police, as mandated by Section 6 of the Gambling Act. The High Court dismissed this contention, stating that the term 'Commissioner of Police' includes an Assistant Commissioner under the Police Act.2. Interpretation of the Term 'Commissioner of Police':The appellant contended that the term 'Commissioner of Police' in the Gambling Act could not be interpreted to include an Assistant Commissioner because the Gambling Act does not define the term, and it was enacted before the Police Act. The Supreme Court found this argument to merit serious consideration. However, upon examining Section 6 of the Gambling Act and Section 17(1) of the Bombay General Clauses Act, the Court concluded that the term 'Commissioner of Police' could include any officer executing the functions of the Commissioner of Police, as defined under the Police Act.3. Applicability of the Bombay General Clauses Act:The Supreme Court analyzed Section 17(1) of the Bombay General Clauses Act, which allows for the substitution of functionaries by their official titles. The Court held that this section applies to the present case, enabling the Assistant Commissioner to discharge the functions of the Commissioner of Police under Section 6 of the Gambling Act. The Court emphasized that the General Clauses Act, being enacted before the Gambling Act, could be used to interpret the latter.4. Legality of the Assignment of Powers:The Court examined Sections 10(2) and 11 of the Police Act, which allow the State Government to appoint Assistant Commissioners and assign them the powers and functions of the Commissioner of Police. The High Court found that a government notification dated March 10, 1967, conferred such powers on the Assistant Commissioners. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, stating that the Assistant Commissioner was legally and validly assigned the powers of the Commissioner of Police, making the search warrant valid.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 4 and 5 of the Gambling Act but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already served, maintaining the sentence of fine. The Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the combined reading of the General Clauses Act and the Police Act justified the inclusion of the Assistant Commissioner within the term 'Commissioner of Police' for the purposes of issuing search warrants under the Gambling Act.