9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - Crl. M.C. No. 3634 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... la 1999 (3) KLT 930, Kunhikannan and Others v. Asst. Sub Inspector of Police (1985 KLT 484), State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Satyanaraya and Others [AIR 1968 SC 825] and Sunil and Others v. State of Kerala and Another 2014 (1) KHC 469, submitted unless it is proved that the place is being used as a common gaming house, mere playing of cards from a place will not amount to an offence under that Act even if the entire allegation in the case is admitted. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that none of these decisions have considered the decision reported in Abraham v. State of Kerala 2000 (3) KLT 163 wherein it has been held that invoking the presumption under Section 6 of the Kerala Gaming Act if it is proved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therein were present for the purpose of gaming invoking the presumption under Section 6 of the Act and found that it is not a case to be quashed and also observed that the earlier decisions namely State of Kerala v. Scariah (1966 KLT 780), Kunhikannan and Others v. Asst. Sub Inspector of Police (1985 KLT 484), Anthumayi v. State of Kerala (1999 (1) KLT 149), Danykutty v. State of Kerala (1999 (3) KLT 930) are not good in law in view of the dictum laid down in the decisions reported in Jagat Singh v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1979 SC 857). But, this decision has not been considered as by the subsequent decisions rendered by this Court namely Sunil and Others v. State of Kerala and Another 2014 (1) KHC 469. So under the circumstances since there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
