2019 (10) TMI 1558 - HC - Indian Laws

Review application - Gambling/offence or not - playing rummy for stakes within the club premises - HELD THAT - There is no dispute about the fact that in view of the notification, playing rummy is excluded from the provisions of the Act and in the impugned judgment the Division Bench has also held that the element of skill is predominant than the element of chance. But the question is whether if rummy is played for stakes, will it amount to violation of the provisions of the Gaming Act or not. This aspect of the matter has to be decided on a case to case basis. What is the manner in which the games are conducted and how it is being conducted through online methods and what are the stakes involved in the matter are all issues which may arise for consideration. If it is just playing rummy without any side betting, the notification protects the parties involved in it. But, in a case where rummy is played for stakes, the issue might be different which has to be dealt with on a case to case basis. Therefore, the application of notification SRO No. 1045/1976 will have to be adjudged depending on a case to case basis. Review petitions are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Review of judgment regarding playing rummy for stakes under the Kerala Gaming Act, 1960 - Exemption notification dated 30/9/1976 - Online gaming considerations - Skill vs. chance in rummy - Application of Gaming Act to rummy played for stakes.

Analysis:
The review petitions concern the judgment that declared playing rummy for stakes within club premises an offense under the Kerala Gaming Act, 1960. The petitioners, companies facilitating offline and online gaming, argue that a 1976 notification exempts rummy from the Act's provisions with the condition of no side-betting. They cite a Supreme Court ruling that recognizes rummy as a game of skill, not chance, unless profit is made from it. The Court notes it did not address online rummy specifically in the judgment.

The petitioners contend that rummy, even when played for stakes, is a game of skill, not gambling, especially considering the 1976 notification. The Additional Advocate General argues that if rummy involves side betting, it constitutes gambling and falls under the Gaming Act. The Court acknowledges rummy's exemption from the Act and the predominance of skill over chance but emphasizes that playing for stakes may alter the assessment. It suggests evaluating each case individually based on the conduct of the games, including online methods and stakes involved.

Ultimately, the Court dismisses the review petitions, stating that the judgment does not warrant review. It underscores the need to assess the application of the exemption notification on a case-by-case basis, depending on factors like the presence of side betting and the conduct of the games. The Court highlights the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each instance where rummy is played for stakes to determine compliance with the Gaming Act.