The King Emperor vs Musa and Another

Oldfield, J.—The accused have been acquitted on a charge of an offence punishable u/s 3(10), Act III of 1889, because the lower Court

was not satisfied on two points, that (1) the game was a game of chance, not skill and (2) it was being played in a place of public resort.

As regards the second point, the lower Court was moved by the fact that only a section of the general public, the Hindu community, has a right

to go to the place and that others can go there only with the permission of the Dharmakartha of the adjoining temple. It is in evidence that the

place, a small open space, is in no way closed by gates or otherwise; and there is no evidence that the Dharmakartha''s alleged right of exclusion is

ever exercised. The definition of a public place as one where the public go, whether they have a right to or not, in R. v. Wellard (1884) 14 L.R.

Q.B.D. 63 has been adopted in this country. Hari Singh v. Jadu Nandan Singh ILR (1904) Calc. 542 In accordance with it, the lower Court''s

decision on this point cannot be sustained.

The description of the game played given in the lower Court''s judgment is not demurred to by the Public Prosecutor or the accused, who

unfortunately is not represented. There is then the finding that the game is one of skill, since the only element of chance in is is constituted by the

possibility, which enters into almost all games, that an unskilful player may occasionally be successful. Such a finding was no doubt treated as

decisive in accused''s favour in Sari Singh v. King-Emperor (1907) 6 C.L.J. 708. But those proceedings were under Bengal Act II of 1867, by

Section 10 of which games of mere skill are excepted from the general prohibition; and it is therefore unnecessary to consider the validity of the

further distinction drawn in Ram Newaz Lal v. Emperor (1914) 23 I.C. 484 that the skill in question is that of two competing parties, not, as here,

that employed by the competitors against the accused, by whom the game was carried on. The real objection to this part of the lower Court''s

decision is that the character of the game as one of skill or chance is not material under Act III of 1889, with which we are concerned.

Section 3(10) of that Act under which these proceedings are taken renders liable any person found in a public place ""gaming with instruments of

gaming""; and the question is what ""gaming"" includes. It has not been shown that the expression can be interpreted, simply etymologically, as

equivalent to ""playing a game."" In the Imperial Dictionary, it is defined as ""to use cards or other instruments according to rules with a view to win

money or other things waged upon the issue of the contest""; and in Murray''s Dictionary (1901), as the action of ""playing at games for stakes."" It is

clear from these citations that the existence of a stake, not the character of the game as one of skill or chance, is regarded as constituting the

distinction between playing a game and gaming. And this is supported by legal authority. No doubt Wharton''s Law Lexicon defines ""gaming"" as

the act or practice of playing and following any game, particularly those of chance; and in the Indian cases already referred to and in English cases

decided under 36 and 37 Vict., cap. 38, Section 3, for instance Redgeway v. Famdale (1892) 2 Q.B. 309 the presence of an element of chance

was treated as material. But that was because of the explicit reference to it or to skill in the statutes in question. The English cases, moreover, such

as Fielding v. Turner (1903) 1 K.B. 866 which were decided under 17 and 18 Vict., cap. 38, Section 4, do not assist us, because they deal with,

unlawful gaming."" We have, however, an Indian case�Ram Pratap Nemani v. Emperor ILR (1912) Calc. 868�in which the meaning of

gaming"" pure and simple was in question, its definition as ""playing at any game for money, which is staked on the result of the game, i.e., which is

to be lost or won according to the success or failure of the person, who has staked. So also in Hari Singh v. Jadu Nandan Singh ILR (1904) Calc.

542 where the distinction between gaming and betting was in question and the game had been held to be one of chance, Stephen, J., incidentally

distinguished ""gaming"" from mere card playing or racing according as they were or were not accompanied by stakes or betting on the result. I

respectfully adopt the view taken in these cases.

The fact that accused paid the players after they had been successful, and did not stake before they played, cannot affect his responsibility, since

he induced them to play on an implicit understanding that he would pay, if he lost. I must accordingly hold that he was found ""gaming"" and convict

him of an offence punishable u/s 3(10) of Act III of 1889. The Public Prosecutor does not press for a substantial sentence. Accused will pay a fine

of Re. 1 or will, in default, suffer one day''s simple imprisonment.

Sadasiva Ayyar, J.

I entirely agree with the judgment just now pronounced by my learned brother though I add a few observations on the points raised in the case

and especially with reference to the character of an ordinary Hindu temple; Section 3 Clause (10) of the Madras Towns Nuisances Act III, of

1889 provides penalties for ""gaming with cards, dice, counters, money or other instruments of gaming in any public street, road, thoroughfare or

place of public resort.

In Webster''s Dictionary revised in 1864,1 find ""game (vi)"" is given three meanings; (1) ""To play at any sport or diversion, (2) to play for a stake

or prize; to use cards, dice, billiards or other instruments, according to certain rules with, a view to win money or thing waged upon the issue of the

context; (3) to practise playing for money or some other stake; to gamble."" If the first definition is taken then ""gaming"" need not involve the idea of

any stake or prize. But the English language is not a stationary language, and according to Murray''s Dictionary, the word ""game"" when used as a

verb seems always to involve the idea of the winning or the losing of a stake or prize as the result of the game. I therefore take it that the word

gaming"" in Act III of 1889 is used in the sense of playing a game for a stake or a prize or for money or other thing waged upon the issue of the

game.

Another question is whether the word ''game'' and its verbal grammatical forms necessarily involve the idea of chance wholly or to a larger

extent than skill. I do not think that the question of chance or skill enters into the connotation of the verb.

As regards Emperor v. Ahmad Khan ILR (1912) All. 96 Hari Singh v. King-Emperor (1807) 6 C.L.J. 708 and similar cases, they seem to turn

upon the language of Acts from the operation of whose provisions games of ""mere skill"" are excluded. Hence they throw no useful light on the

meaning of the word ""gaming.

In the present case, the game in question is a modification of what is called the ""ring game"" and, as I said above, it is immaterial whether the

game is a game of mere skill or whether it is a game of combined skill and chance whichever predominating. Games of mere chance are

comparatively very few, even in a throw of dice long practice might probably introduce an element of skill. I am inclined to think on the evidence in

this case that the game in question is more a game of chance than of skill.

As regards the nature of the place, where the game in dispute was carried on, that is, whether it was a place of public resort, that phrase

occurs also in the Madras City Police Act III of 1888 and it was held in Crown Prosecutor v. Moonoosamy ILR (1910) Mad. 83 that a licensed

arrack shop is a place of public resort. And it has been also decided that an open space to which the public has easy access is a ""public place

within the meaning of Section 159, of the Indian Penal Code: see Hari Singh v. Jadu Nandan Singh ILR (1904) Calc. 542 In High Court

Proceedings No. 1140, dated 5th August 1879 (1879) 1 Weir, 68 the entrance to a Hindu temple was decided to be a public place. I shall

assume that the place in dispute in this case is part of the compound of a Hindu temple, and not part of the street. Even so, I think it is a place of

public resort though other religionists might be excluded from its precincts, just as a mosque can be called a place of public worship though only

Mussalmans are allowed to enter it to pray therein. It is not necessary, I think, that every member of the public should have a right of access to a

place in order to make it a place of public resort. Most Hindu public temples do not allow entrance to members of the depressed classes, but they

do not in my opinion fall out of the category of public places and do not become private buildings on that account.