Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The offence with which the accused is charged is that of keeping a common gaming house, punishable under Section 6 of Madras Act III of 1889. A common gaming house is defined thus in 15 Halsbury 217: "It is one in which a large number of persons are invited habitually to congregate for the purpose of gaming." In Jenkins v. Turpin (1882) LR 13 QBD 505, Hawkins, J., says: " Neither do I think it makes any difference that the use of the house and the gaming therein was limited to the subscribers and members of the club, and that it was not open to all persons who might be desirous of using the same. If this could be set up as a defence to an indictment, any indictment for keeping a common gaming house might be defeated. " I am willing to accept this statement of the law and I do not think that this is at variance with that contained in Srinivasathari and Ors. v. Rex 1 Weir 917, where the learned Judges, Sir Arthur Collins, C. J. and Parker, J. observe: "In the absence of any technical definition the term common gaming house must at least imply that the house was one used as a place of public resort. " They do not say what a place of public resort is and,