9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 1630 - HC - Indian LawsGambling or not - playing rummy - visit by respondent police in the club every now and then under the guise of inspection - Preventing police personnel in doing their lawful activity - HELD THAT - The respondent-Association by virtue of the order of the learned Single Judge cannot prevent the Police Personnel to do their lawful duty. Whether the stake involved in playing the game of rummy amounts to gambling? - HELD THAT - In this regard it is pertinent to quote the Judgment of Constitution Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court with regard to gambling in STATE OF BOMBAY VERSUS RMD. CHAMARBAUGWALA ANR. ADVOCATE-GENERAL OF MYSORE 1957 (4) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Hon ble Apex Court held that the prize competitions being of a gambling nature they cannot be regarded as trade or commerce and as such the respondent/petitioner cannot claim as fundamental right under Article 19(1) (g) in respect of such competitions or they are entitled to the protection under Article 301. Considering the fact that gambling is an evil and it is rampant that gaming houses flourish as profitable business and that detection of gambling is extremely difficult. Further in view of the Judgment of Constitution Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbagwala and the reasons mentioned it is opined that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in this regard are not sustainable and the same are set-aside. Other directions given by the learned Single Judge remain unaltered - Appeal allowed in part.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of playing Rummy with stakes. 2. Police interference in the functioning of the Club. 3. Application of the Public Gambling Act, 1867/Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930. 4. Rights of the Club under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 301 of the Constitution. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Playing Rummy with Stakes: The primary issue revolves around whether playing Rummy with stakes constitutes gambling. The learned Single Judge had directed that the petitioner association shall not indulge in any illegal activity other than playing Rummy (13 cards) with stakes by its members and guests. However, the Special Government Pleader contended that playing Rummy with stakes amounts to gambling. The judgment cited the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbagwala [AIR 1957 SC 699], which held that gambling activities are not protected under Article 19(1)(g) or Article 301 of the Constitution. The Court concluded that the stake involved in playing Rummy amounts to gambling, thus setting aside the direction allowing Rummy with stakes. 2. Police Interference in the Functioning of the Club: The learned Single Judge had directed that there should be no interference in the lawful functioning of the Clubs by the Police, and it is not permissible for the police to enter the Club premises as a routine measure. The Special Government Pleader argued that such directions prevent the police from performing their lawful duty, especially when there is suspicion of gambling. The Court agreed, emphasizing that the police must be allowed to perform their duties lawfully and cannot be restrained by the Club’s order. Therefore, the direction preventing routine police interference was deemed unsustainable. 3. Application of the Public Gambling Act, 1867/Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930: The judgment highlighted that the Club’s activities must not violate the provisions of the Public Gambling Act, 1867, or the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930. The learned Single Judge had provided several directions to ensure that the Club operates within the legal framework, including the right of the police to inspect the premises if there is evidence of gambling and the necessity for police to follow mandatory provisions under the Acts. These directions were upheld, except for those allowing Rummy with stakes and preventing routine police interference. 4. Rights of the Club under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 301 of the Constitution: The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbagwala, which held that gambling activities do not constitute trade or commerce and are not protected under Article 19(1)(g) or Article 301. The judgment emphasized that gambling is an evil, and the Constitution does not guarantee the freedom of gambling as a fundamental right. Consequently, the Club cannot claim the right to conduct gambling activities under these constitutional provisions. Conclusion: The High Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the directions permitting Rummy with stakes and preventing routine police interference, while upholding the other directions to ensure the Club’s activities comply with the law. The judgment reinforced that gambling is not protected as a fundamental right and highlighted the police’s role in curbing illegal gambling activities.
|
