9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against order of Madhya Pradesh High Court; Constitutionality of sections 6 and 8 of the Gambling Act under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Analysis: The case involved an appeal against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order dismissing a criminal revision filed by three appellants who were tried under the United State of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa (Madhya Bharat) Gambling Act. The appellants were convicted under section 4 of the Act, with one also convicted under section 3. After an unsuccessful appeal to the Court of Session, the appellants filed a revision petition in the High Court, where the sentences were enhanced with fines. The appellants challenged the constitutionality of sections 6 and 8 of the Act, arguing they violated Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The main contention was that the impugned sections unreasonably impaired the right of assembly and property enjoyment, shifting the burden of proof to the accused and relying on officer suspicion for prosecution. The appellants argued that the provisions were unconstitutional as they infringed on fundamental rights and breached Article 21. However, the Court noted that gambling was acknowledged as a societal evil needing protection. The Act aimed to eradicate gambling, and the issue was whether the restrictions imposed were unreasonable. The Court analyzed the definitions of "gaming," "gaming house," and "instruments of gaming," finding them reasonable and essential for detecting offenders. Safeguards were in place to prevent victimization of innocent persons during searches and arrests. The Act empowered officers to enter suspected gaming houses based on credible information and conduct searches, with the burden of proof shifting to the accused only after satisfying the Court of reasonable suspicion. The Court concluded that the Act contained adequate safeguards to prevent arbitrary enforcement and protect individuals unless proven guilty of keeping a gaming house or being present for gaming. In light of the rampant nature of gambling and the need to curb it in the public interest, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the impugned provisions. It found the Act provided sufficient safeguards to prevent harm to individuals unless proven to be involved in illegal gambling activities. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the constitutionality of the sections challenged under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
|
