AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1 paragraphs · 78 words
Lakshmana Rao, J.—The evidence justifies the conviction of petitioners 1 to 3 and their sentences are not excessive. But the evidence is that petitioners 4 to 11 were the servants of petitioner 1, the keeper of the common gaming house, and it is not suggested that they were gambling. They cannot therefore be convicted u/s 9, Madras Gaming Act, and their conviction is set aside. Their fines if levied will be refunded and otherwise the petition is dismissed.