C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) ON information that the management of Elite Club, situated at Road No. 9-A Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad is collecting huge amounts from players of Rummy with 13 cards/sydicate in its premises and is using the premises as a common gaming house, on search proceedings issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Banjara Hills Division, Hyderabad, Jubilee Hills Police raided the Elite Club premises being managed by the petitioners, and found 40 persons playing Rummy (13 card game/syndicate) on 7 tables, by each player contributing Rs. 500/- to the Syndicate pool/ and each table giving Rs. 500/- to the club. In the 2nd floor they found 46 persons at 6 tables playing game of Rummy with 13 cards/syndicate. In the 3rd floor they found 6 persons playing Rummy on the table and in the 4th floor they found 42 persons playing, at 8 tables, the game of Rummy with 13 cards/syndicate, by each player contributing Rs. 1,000/ -. Rs. 1,000/- was paid to the club by each table. In total Rs. 1,43,170/- was collected by the club from the players from all the tables in the premises and, therefore, a case in Crime No. 252 of 2002 was registered by the S. H. O. Jubilee Hills Police Station.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that petitioners, who are in management of the affairs of the Elite Club, are making huge profits by allowing people to play the game of Rummy with 13 cards/syndicate in the club premises, and so the premises of the club is a "common gaming house" as defined under S. 2 (1) of the A. P. Gaming Act, 1974 (the Act) and so petitioners are liable for punishment under S. 3 of the Act.

( 3 ) BY this petition petitioner is seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No. 252 of 2002 of Jubilee Hills Police Station registered under S. 3 of the Act.

( 4 ) THE main contention of Sri V. Venkataramana, the learned counsel for the petitioners is that even assuming that all the averments in FIR and Panchnama are true, no offence under the Act is made out against the petitioners because Rummy is but a game of skill, and since as per Section 15 of the Act and the other provisions of the Act would not apply to games of skill. He relied on K. R. Lakshmanan v. State of T. N. AIR 1996 SC 1153 : and Executive Club formed by Lalitha Real Estates (P) Ltd. v. State of A. P. (1998) 5 Andh LD 126 : in support of his contention.

( 5 ) THE contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that since the case is still under investigation and since the Panchanama shows that more than one lakh forty thousand rupees was collected from the players playing the game of Rummy in the premises being managed by the petitioners. It is prima facie clear that petitioners are making huge profit by allowing people to play Rummy in the premises being managed by them, and therefore, in view of observations in State of A. P. v. K. Satyanarayana, AIR 1968 SC 825 : the premises, where Rummy is being played, would fall in the net of the definition of common gaming house in the Act. He also places strong reliance on Twin Cities Cinema Cultural Centr e, Jubilee Hills v. Commr. of Police (2002) 2 Andh LD (Cri) 232, where my learned Brother A. Gopal Reddy, J. following K. Satyanarayana Case (supra) held that if the club is making profit out of the game of Rummy the provisions of the Act would apply.

( 6 ) IN reply the contention of Sri V. Venkataramana, learned Counsel for petitioner is that an appeal against the judgment in Twin Cities Cinema Cultural Centre, a Division Bench of this Court in W. A. No. 1167 of 2002, dated 29-7-2002, clarified the order of the learned single Judge observing as follows :"therefore, the police authorities cannot obstruct the writ petitioner-club from conducting card room where the members and guests of the writ petitioner s cultural center are allowed to play the game of rummy with stakes/syndicate (thirteen card game ). At the same time, we make it clear that the police is always at liberty to enter the premises and check as to whethe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document