JANARDAN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JANARDAN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

The Assistant Commissioner of Police was legally empowered, via State Government order and Commissioner’s assignment, to issue search warrants under Section 6 of the Gambling Act, and Section 17 of the General Clauses Act operates to resolve statutory anomalies by permitting substitution of functionaries.

Parties
Appellant: Janardhan; Respondent: State of Maharashtra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 April 1978
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Bombay High Court (nagpur Bench) Judgment Dated 8 11 1971 in Criminal Revision Application No. 39 of 1971
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Statutory Functionaries, Powers Under Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act 1887, Assignment of Functions Under Police Act, Application of General Clauses Act
Criminal Law Interpretation of Statutory Functionaries Powers Under Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act 1887 Assignment of Functions Under Police Act Application of General Clauses Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janardhan

Appellant

State of Maharashtra

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Bombay High Court (nagpur Bench) Judgment Dated 8 11 1971 in Criminal Revision Application No. 39 of 1971

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Assistant Commissioner of Police can validly issue a search warrant under Section 6 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887

Ratio Decidendi

The Assistant Commissioner of Police was legally empowered, via State Government order and Commissioner’s assignment, to issue search warrants under Section 6 of the Gambling Act, and Section 17 of the General Clauses Act operates to resolve statutory anomalies by permitting substitution of functionaries.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction under sections 4 and 5 of the Gambling Act upheld
  • Sentence of imprisonment reduced to period already undergone