JUDGMENT

Mukerji, J. - This is, reference made u/s 438, Criminal P.C., by the Sessions Judge of Hooghly recommending that the conviction of 15 persons, one Arjoon Singh and 14 others, u/s 4, Act 2 (B.C.) of 1867 and the fine imposed thereunder may be set aside. The case has been argued before me in great detail on behalf of the petitioners as well as on behalf of the Crown.

2. The only question that arises for determination in the case is whether the game that was being played at the time when the petitioners were arrested was "gaming" within the meaning of the Act. The definition in the Act does not really define "gaming," but merely indicates what it is like and excludes wagering or betting on some particular occasion and in particular circumstances and also excludes a lottery." In Hari Singh v. Emperor [1907] 6 C.L.J. 708 it was held that a game of skill is not an offence under the Act but a game of chance is, and that if a game involves a certain amount of skill as well as a certain amount of chance, if the chief element of the game is skill it is not an offence. This decision was passed in 1907. It was incidentally approved of in Bengali Shah v. Emperor [1913] 40 Cal. 702. In Ra