SINDHI LOHANA CHAITHRAM vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT

The Supreme Court held that under Section 6(1)(i) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, a Deputy Superintendent of Police can issue a search warrant if empowered by notification. The Court affirmed that the notification dated January 22, 1955, validly empowered Shri Pandya, the Deputy Superintendent, to issue the warrant. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the seizure of gaming instruments raises a presumption under Section 7 that the premises were used as a common gaming house, which can be rebutted if evidence suggests otherwise. The conviction of the appellant was upheld.