( 1 ) THE Petitioner who was the 6th accused in the trial Court has been convicted of the offence of keeping a common gaming house and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Es. 200. The conviction and sentence are both confirmed in appeal. The correctness of this has been questioned on the ground that proof of any income or profit being derived by allowing the premises to be used for gambling is lacking in the case and that the examination of the Petitioner is defective. Five others who were tried along with the Petitioner were found guilty of gaming and sentenced to fines. These have not challenged the convictions. It must therefore be taken as established that there was gaming in the premises by those persons.

( 2 ) THOUGH it is not disputed that the building in which gaming was carried on is that of the Petitioner, the contention is that in the absence of evidence of monetary benefit to the Petitioner from this he cannot be considered to be keeping a common gaming house under the Act. The definition of the expression in section 4 (3) of the Act no doubt mentions gain to the person as a necessary element and shows that mere use of the propert

Click Here to Read the rest of this document