The word "gaming" in Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867, includes playing games of chance for money or speculating recklessly. A slip of paper, though generally used for various purposes other than gaming, can in a particular set of circumstances become an instrument of gaming.

ORDER :- This is a criminal reference made by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Panaji recommending that the order of the J. M. F. C.. Panaji convicting the petitioner/accused be quashed and the petitioner be acquitted.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

On the information received that the petitioner was accepting matka bets Head Constable Valadares laid a trap. Two panchas and one punter were called by Valadares. The punter Ramakant Saval, was searched in the presence of the panchas and thereafter asked to bet with the accused on number 45. Accordinaly he went to the "gada" of the accused and betted on number 45 and gave to the accused a one rupee note which had been signed by Valadares and the Panchas. The accused wrote the number 45 on a small slip of paper and handed it over to the punter. The punter signalled to the police party and the police party came and searched the accused. They recovered from the accused the one rupee note and a long slip of paper on which many numbers were written of which the last one was 45. The rupee note and the slip were taken possession of under a panchanama. The accused was summarily tried and convicted. He went in revision to the Additional Sessions Judge who made this reference with a recommendation that the accused be acquitted.

3. Dr. Ataide Lobo, learned Advocate for the accused, raised before me two points of law. namely; (i) that the whole transaction which consisted of writing the figure 45 by the accused on a slip of paper and passing the slip of paper to the punter, of writing the figure 45 also on the long slip of paper found in possession of the accused and of the giving by the punter and the receiving by the accused of the marked one rupee note, does not constitute "gaming" under S.

13 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 (hereinafter called "the Act"); and (ii) that the slip of paper where the number

45 was recorded and which was given to the punter, was not an instrument of gaming.

4. The dictionary meaning of "gambling" is to play games of chance for money, to stake money on some chance, to speculate recklessly. The dictionary definition of "gaming" is gambling. The word "gaming" used to have the meaning of celebration of games during the Greek and Roman times. This archaic meaning is of no relevance to us. The words "playing for money" and "playing any game" have to be read in the context of S. 13 and of the entire Act and if so read we find that the said words refer to gambling or playing games of chance for money or to speculate recklessly. In arriving at this conclusion the words "not being a game of mere skill" occurring in this Section and the word "gambling" occurring in the title of "the Act" are of importance. I have to resort to this interpretation because the words "game or "gaming" or "playing for money" have not been defined in "the Act". In Arjoon Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1929 Cal 769 the learned Judge who delivered the judgment observed that the Bengal Public Gambling Act, which corresponds to "the Act" in the present case, does not define gaming but merely indicates what it is like and excludes wagering or betting on some particular occasion and in some particular circumstances and also excludes lottery. He held that to bring the case within the meaning of "gaming" all that has to be seen is whether the game that was going on was for money which was staked on the result of the game which was to be lost or won according to the success or failure of the person who has staked. I respectfully agree with the finding of the learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court. The element of staking money on the result of the game which depended on a chance, such staking being for the purpose of gaining money, and the absence of any skill involved in the game are two important factors which in the present case lead me to hold that the entire transactionthat took place on the day of the incident between the punter and the accused comes within the purview of Se