‘Whether Playing Cards Under Gambling Act Amounts To An Offence Involving Moral Turpitude’? Supreme Court To Consider

The Supreme Court has issued notice on a special leave request, raising a address as to whether a individual, indicted beneath the Gambling Act, 1867 for playing cards, can be said to have committed an offense which tantamount to ‘moral turpitude’.

 The Division Bench of Judges SK Kaul and MM Sundresh issued notice on the request recorded by one Satendra Singh Tomar, against a 2019 judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

 Through the condemned judgment, a Division Bench of the High Court at Gwalior had set aside a single Judge arrange, coordinating the Screening Committee to re examine its choice cancelling the Petitioner’s candidature for the post of Constable in Police.

 The Applicant was said to have committed an act of ethical turpitude, due to his conviction beneath Area 13 of the 1867 Act for playing cards in a colony. The Screening Committee had expressed that he was not fit for an work in restrained constrain. Expressing that it is inside the watchfulness of the manager to not to enlist such officeholder, an offer was recorded before the Division Seat against the Single Judge’s arrange, which came to be permitted on January 23, 2019. The said order is decried before the Top Court.

 The Division Seat had opined that in see of the choice rendered by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar, the single judge’s choice cannot be upheld.

In the case of Abhijit Singh Pawar, the Supreme Court had watched that indeed after divulgence is made by a candidate almost criminal cases pending against him, the manager would be well inside his rights to consider the predecessors and the appropriateness of the candidate.

 In his special leave request, Tomar has contended that among the list of offenses within the Plan to the 1867 Act, the offence under Section 13 has not been mentioned. But that has been opined as only illustrative list of offences and not exhaustive, his counsel added.

Advocates Siddharth Sharma, Prashant Sharma, Shashank Singh and AOR Madhuram Aparajita represented the

Petitioner.

Case Title: Satendra Singh Tomar v. State of MP & Ors.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close