2014 (1) TMI 1930 - HC - Indian Laws

Rummy - game of skill or not - Sections 7 8 of Kerala Gaming Act, 1960 - HELD THAT - There are loss to find any allegation that the accused were found engaged in gaming as defined under the Act in a common gaming house run for profit or gain of the person owing as defined in Section 2(a) of the Act. Section 7 would reveal that the penalty is for opening, keeping etc. and to be used any common gaming house. In the absence of any allegation that the place of alleged gaming was a common gaming house, this section cannot be said to be attracted. Section 8 of the Act is all about the penalty for being found gaming in a common gaming house. Here also the offence is not attracted in the absence of an allegation even in the FIR or in the final report. The petitioners are legally entitled to contend that the charge against them is unsustainable in the law. Therefore, this Court is persuaded to invoke jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to terminate a prosecution, which cannot stand the scrutiny of law. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioners charged under Sections 7 & 8 of Kerala Gaming Act, 1960 for gaming activities in different clubs and resorts. Legal provisions defining common gaming house and penalties under Sections 7 & 8 analyzed. Interpretation of gaming activities in private buildings versus common gaming houses. Examination of precedents regarding gaming offenses. Application of legal principles to specific cases of gaming in clubs and resorts.

Analysis:

1. Legal Provisions and Definitions:
The judgment delves into the legal provisions of the Kerala Gaming Act, 1960, specifically Sections 2(a) and (b) defining a "common gaming house." The Act distinguishes between gaming in private buildings and common gaming houses, emphasizing the frequency and public nuisance aspect of the latter. The definitions clarify that gaming encompasses wagering or betting but excludes lotteries. The judgment highlights the importance of these definitions in determining the legality of gaming activities.

2. Charges under Sections 7 & 8:
The petitioners were charged under Sections 7 and 8 of the Act for their involvement in gaming activities in different establishments. Section 7 pertains to penalties for operating or using a common gaming house, while Section 8 deals with penalties for individuals found gaming in such establishments. The judgment scrutinizes the allegations against the petitioners in each case to ascertain whether they were engaged in gaming in a common gaming house as defined by the Act.

3. Interpretation of Precedents:
The judgment references past legal precedents to interpret the application of Sections 7 and 8 of the Act. It cites cases where the courts ruled that gaming in a common gaming house constitutes an offense, emphasizing the distinction between private gaming and activities in common gaming houses. The judgment underscores the necessity of meeting the conditions precedent, such as the existence of a common gaming house, to invoke the penal provisions of the Act.

4. Specific Case Analysis:
Each petition is individually analyzed concerning the nature of the gaming activities and the locations where they took place. The judgment examines whether the accused were found gaming in common gaming houses intended for profit or gain, as required by the Act. It considers factors such as the type of games played, the amounts involved, and the legal interpretations of skill-based games like Rummy. The judgment ultimately concludes that the allegations did not establish the presence of common gaming houses, rendering the charges unsustainable under the law.

5. Termination of Prosecution:
Based on the legal analysis and lack of evidence supporting the charges under Sections 7 and 8, the court invokes its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the final reports and proceedings against the petitioners. The judgment emphasizes the importance of upholding legal standards and protecting individuals from unjust implications, leading to the dismissal of the cases and the termination of further proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal provisions, precedents, and specific circumstances surrounding the gaming offenses, ultimately leading to the termination of the prosecution against the petitioners due to the lack of evidence supporting the charges under the Kerala Gaming Act, 1960.