Emperor vs Sukhnandan Singh and Another

Stuart, J.—The only point raised in this revision is whether the applicants were gambling in a public place. On the finding of the Magistrate who tried the case, they were found gambling in the area occupied by a large grove. At one end of the grove is the shrine of a goddess and a tank. A fair was in progress at the time that they were gambling and visitors to the fair had penetrated to all parts of the grove. The grove is private property, but on the occasion of the fair the public use the grove and there is no interference with their so doing. The decision in the case of Ahmad Ali v. King-Emperor (1904) A.L.J. 120 is not in point, because the grove used for the purpose of gambling in that case was a private grove to which the public did not have access. The question as to whether the grove in this case was or was not a public place presents little difficulty. When the public have access to a place, without their access being refused or interfered with, that place is a public place whether the public have a right to go there or not. Authority for this proposition will be found in Queen v. Wellard (1884) 14 Q.B.D. 6. Lord Coleridge laid down there that a place was a public place if the public were in the habit of resorting to it and no one prevented them from so doing. Grove, J., laid down that a public place is one where the public go, no matter whether they have a right to go or not. This view was accepted in the case of Queen Empress v. Sri Lal ILR (1895) All. 166. Edge C.J., laid down that a public place was a place to which the public had by right or by permission or by usage or otherwise, access. I, therefore, find that the applicants were gambling in a public place and they were rightly convicted. I dismiss this application.