101-NLR-NLR-V-49-LANTIS-Appellant-and-MUSAFER-S.-I.-Police-Respondent.pdf
334
BASNAYAKJE J.—Lantis v. Musafer.
1948Present: Basnayake J.LANTIS, Appellant, and MUSAFER (S. I. Police), Respondent.
S. C. 71—.M. C. Galle, 6,806
Betting on Horse-racing Ordinance—Receiving or negotiating a bet—Receipt of chitcontaining names of horses and rupee—Section 3 (5) (6).
Accused accepted from one S a chit containing the names of three horsesdue to run that c}ay a horse-race at Secunderabad in India and a rupee insatisfaction of the bet. When the police arrived he had the chit and rupeein his hand. He had on the table in front of him a Sports newspaper containingthe names of horses due to run that day at Secunderabad, There was alsoanother chit containing the names of six of the horses mentioned in thenewspaper.
Held, that in the circumstances the act of the accused in receiving the chitand the rupee constituted the receipt or negotiation of a bet. The factthat all steps connected with the receiving of the bet were not completedwhen the police arrived did not affect the matter.
jApPEAX from a judgment of the Magistrate, Galle.
H. W. Jayewardene, for the accused, appellant.
V. T. Thamotheram, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. mdt.
April 5, 1948. Basnayake J.—
The appellant .has been found guilty of a breach of section 3 (3) (b)
of the Betting on Horse-racing Ordinance and ordered to pay a1 {1928) 30 N.L.R. 212.*(1919) 2 K~B. 278 at 289.
HASN'AYAKE J.—Lardis v. Musafer.
335
fine of Rb. 350. That provision reads “ Any person who receivesor negotiates a bet on a horse-race other than a taxable bet shall bedeemed to bet unlawfully on a horse-race and shall be guilty of anoffence
The evidence shows that on July 30, 1947, the appellant acceptedfrom one Somapala who was employed by the police as a decoy achit containing the names of three horses that were due to run thatday at a horse-race at Secunderabad in India and a rupee in satis-faction of the bet. When the raiding officers entered the room inwhich the appellant was, he had, according to Sub-Inspector Musafer,the chit and the rupee in his hand. He had on the table in frontof him a Sports Newspaper containing the names of the horses due torun that day at Secunderabad. There was also another chitcontaining the names of six of the horses mentioned in the newspaper.He had with him Rs. 31 in the pocket of his banian and Rs. 3.95in a pocket in hi3 belt.
According to Sompala the rupee was not on the table and theappellant was scrutinizing the chit when Sub-Inspector Musaferentered. Sompala says that it is the appellant’s practice to give acommission of 20 cents on a rupee and return to the person placingthe bet a “ duplicate ” of the chit containing the names of the horses.In this instance the police party entered before either the commissionor the “ duplicate ” was given.
The question I have to decide is whether the act of the appellant inreceiving the rupee and the chit in the circumstanees of this case fellswithin the ambit of section 3 (3) (6) of the Betting on Horse-racingOrdinance. The expressions “ bet ” and “ receive or negotiate ” arenot defined in the Ordinance nor does the context indicate that theyare used in a special sense. They should therefore be construedaccording to their ordinary meaning. Murray’s New EnglishDictionary defines a “ bet ” as the backing of a forecast by offeringto forfeit in the case of an issue a sum of money or article of valueto one who maintains the opposite and backs his opinion by a corre-sponding stipulation. When the appellant accepted the chit containingthe forecast of the winners of some of the horse-races to be run atSecunderabad on that day and the rupee which the person makingthe forecast was prepared to forfeit in the case of an adverse issue,he received a bet within the contemplation of section 3 (3) (b). Thefact- that all the steps in connexion with the receiving of the bet werenot completed when the police officers came on the scene, in myopinion, does not affect the matter. It is clear from the evidence thatthe bet accepted by the appellant is not a ** taxable bet" as under-stood in the Ordinance. Secunderabad is a place outside Ceylon.The Ordinance makes no provision for registering race-courses outsidethe jurisdiction of our legislature. Apart from that, the words otherthan a taxable bet create an exemption or excuse the onus of reevingwhich rests on the appellant. He should ~~if he want-* .sensehimself prove 1 that the bet is a taxable bet.
The appeal is disnmsedL
Appeal'L-
1 Section 105 of the, Evidence Ordinance.