2018 (1) TMI 1713 - HC - Indian Laws

Playing cards for money in Thalikkulam Beach Resort at Thalikkulam - Search and seizure of playing cards - Section 7 8 of Kerala Gaming Act, 1960 - HELD THAT - Since there are conflicting views expressed by two benches of this Court and considering the important question of law raised on the subject, this Court feels that it is necessary that the correct principle of law has to be resolved by a larger bench, since there are two contradictory decisions rendered by two Single Benches of the same Court on the same question of law involved. So the following question has to be considered for reference. Whether in view of the dictum laid down in the decision reported in Abraham v. State of Kerala 2000 (7) TMI 1013 - KERALA HIGH COURT , the earlier decisions of this Court reported in State of Kerala v. Scariah, Kunhikannan and Others v. Asst. Sub Inspector of Police 1985 (4) TMI 344 - KERALA HIGH COURT , Anthumayi v. State of Kerala 1998 (11) TMI 700 - KERALA HIGH COURT and SUNIL AND ORS. VERSUS STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. 2014 (1) TMI 1930 - KERALA HIGH COURT are having any binding effect and which of the dictum laid down is the correct law taking into consideration the presumption available under Section 6 of the Kerala Gaming Act. Place it before the Honourable Chief Justice for making a reference to a larger bench to resolve this question.

Summary

Issues:
Application to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure based on allegations of playing cards for money under Kerala Gaming Act, 1960.

Analysis:
The accused filed an application seeking to quash the First Information Report (FIR) alleging offences under Section 7 & 8 of the Kerala Gaming Act, 1960. The prosecution's case was that the accused were found playing cards for money at a resort and seized playing cards and cash. The defense argued that merely playing cards does not constitute an offense unless it is proved that the place is being used as a common gaming house, citing various legal precedents. However, the prosecution contended that invoking the presumption under Section 6 of the Kerala Gaming Act is applicable if it is proven that the accused were playing with cards for money. The court noted conflicting decisions by different benches of the same court regarding the interpretation of the law under the Kerala Gaming Act. One bench held that playing cards alone would not attract the offense, while another bench emphasized the presumption under Section 6 when gaming instruments are seized. Due to the contradictory views, the court decided to refer the matter to a larger bench to resolve the question of law regarding the correct interpretation of the Kerala Gaming Act and the applicability of the presumption under Section 6 in such cases.

In conclusion, the High Court of Kerala decided to refer the conflicting views on the interpretation of the Kerala Gaming Act to a larger bench for resolution. The court acknowledged the importance of clarifying the legal principles involved, particularly concerning the presumption under Section 6 of the Act in cases where individuals are found playing cards for money. The decision to seek clarification from a larger bench was based on the conflicting judgments by different benches of the same court, highlighting the need for a definitive ruling on the matter to ensure consistency and legal certainty in such cases.