In Re: Thambi Iyengar and Others

Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.—Only a technical objection has been taken to the correctness of the convictions in this case under the Gaming

Act, but I am afraid the objection has to be allowed. The warrant issued u/s 5 does not set out that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who

issued it, had reason to believe that the house in question was being used as a "" common gaming house."" All that it states is that information had

been laid before him that gambling was going on in house No. 67, Iyengar Street. It is only if there is a proper compliance with the terms of Section

5 that the presumption u/s 6 will apply. As a matter of fact, there is no proof in this case, apart from the presumption that can be raised u/s 6, that

the house was used for the profit or gain of the person owning or occupying it. In the circumstances, the presumption does not arise and, in the

absence of specific evidence, the convictions have to be set aside.

It is desirable that officers who issue warrants u/s 5 of the Gaming Act take good care to employ the language of the section in the warrants,

provided, of course, they are satisfied on information received by them, that any place falls within the definition of "" a common gaming house

within the Act.

The convictions and the sentences are set aside. The fines, if paid, will be refunded. The cash (M.O. 3) seized from the first accused will be

given back to him.