Avoor Ramaswami Iyer and Another vs Emperor

Odgers, J.—In this case the petitioners have been convicted for offences under Sections 6 and 7 of Act III of 1889, namely, for opening or

permitting to be used any common gaming house and for being found gaming or present for the purpose of gaming in a common gaming house. The

prosecution sought to establish the offences by the evidence of Sub Inspector, P.W. No. 1, who arranged to raid the house himself, he having

previously deputed P.W. No. 2, a Police Constable to get into the house, and to arrange to play. Prosecution Witness No. 1 says that he never

went to the house on any previous occasion. He does not know how long the 1st accused has been residing in the house and as for P. W. No. 2

he admits that the 1st accused might have known him, On the other hand, the defence evidence is that the 1st accused has been living in the house

in question for 30 years with his life and family and that it is a residential house and that the reason why there was cards play at that house at the

time in question was that there was a Thirakalyanam (marriage) festival and certain persons had come to his house and they had a game of cards.

Of course it may be that several of the persons present in the house at the time and who admittedly were all playing for money were not the

personal friends of the 1st accused. But the difficulty I feel in the case is the insufficiency of the evidence that this is a common gaming house that is

to say, that it is a public place of resort of persons who want to play games of chance for money. The evidence of the prosecution seems to me to

be entirely insufficient to support that. There is no doubt that it must be a place of resort and ''resort'' I take it means that people are accustomed to

go there. But it does not mean, of course, that the same person need go more than once but a number of people are in the habit of resorting to the

house as a place swell-known to them where they can get what they want in the way of gambling. That seems to me to be the effect of the decision

quoted in In re Chinniah 77 Ind. Cas. 303 : (1924) M.W.N. 237 : 19 L.W. 219 : 46 M.L.J. 309 : 34 M.L.T. 195 : 25 Cr.L.J. 367 : 47 M. 426 :

AIR 1924 Mad. 729. Under these circumstances I think the prosecution has failed to prove that this house in question is a common gaming house

and that, therefore, the conviction must be set aside and the fines, if paid, must be refunded. The articles seized from the petitioners will also be

restored to them.