: Playing 'Rummy' with cards does not constitute an offense under the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act.

Vasanti A. Naik, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Writ Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks the quashing and setting aside of the First Information Reports bearing Nos. 4259/2016, 4264/2016 and 3023/2017 registered against the petitioner and it's members for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act.

3. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that 'Rummy' is a game of skill and therefore, playing the game of 'Rummy' with cards would not be an offence under the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act. It is stated that on a perusal of the F.I.R. registered against the petitioner and it's members, it could be seen that the only allegation made against the petitioner and it's members is that, in the premises of the petitioner, the members were involved in playing 'Rummy” with cards and certain money and counters (coins) were recovered from each of the individuals. It is stated that even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are accepted at their face value in the entirety, it cannot be said that the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act could be prima facie made out. It is stated that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment reported in AIR 1968 SC 825, State of Andhra Pradesh vs. K. Satyanarayana is followed by this Court from time to time and the proceedings initiated against the accused for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Gambling Act are quashed and set aside after recording a finding that 'Rummy” is a game of skill and not purely of chance and hence, the persons involved in playing 'Rummy” cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under the said Act.

4. Mr. S.S. Doifode, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents does not dispute the position of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is, however, stated that when a raid was conducted in the petitioner Krida Mandal, the raiding party had seized coins, cards and money which were deposited with the cashier. It is stated that since the individual members of the petitioner were involved in playing 'Rummy' with money, the offences punishable under the Prevention of Gambling Act are registered against them.

5. The issue involved in this Criminal Writ Petition is no more res integra and this Court has time and again held in the Judgments reported in 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 1040, Robert Elango J. vs. Inspector of Police and another; 2006 Law Suit (Bom) 2334, K.L. Mansukhani vs. Surendra Kumar; 2012 (3) Mh.L.J. (Cri) 428, Jaywant Balkrishna Sail and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others and an unreported Judgment of this Court, dt.13.6.2017 in Criminal Writ Petition No.544 of 2016 (Gajendra s/o. Shivprasad Kedia vs. State of Maharashtra and another) that unless the allegations in the F.I.R. disclose that the accused were involved in playing a game of chance with the cards and the game was mentioned, an offence under Section 12(a) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act cannot be prima facie made out. No offence could be made out against the petitioner even if we accept the allegations in the F.I.R. against the petitioner at their face value. According to the respondents, the individual members of the petitioner were playing the game of 'Rummy' and since the game of 'Rummy' is not a game purely of a chance and is a game of skill, the offence could not have been registered against the petitioners.

6. Hence, for the reasons recorded hereinabove and also for the reasons recorded in the Judgments reported in 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 1040, Robert Elango J. vs. Inspector of Police and another; 2006 LawSuit (Bom) 2334, K. L. Mansukhani vs. Surendra Kumar; 2012 (3) Mh.l.J. (Cri) 428, Jaywant Balkrishna Sail and Others vs. State of Mah