The central legal point established is the requirement for sufficient evidence to prove that a place is a common gaming house, emphasizing the need for it to be a public place of resort for gambling.

Odgers, J.

1. In this case the petitioners have been convicted for offences under Sections 6 and 7, Act 3 of 1889, namely, for opening or permitting to be used any common gaming house and for being found gaming or present for the purpose of gaming in a common gaming house. The prosecution sought to establish the offences by the evidence of Sub-Inspector, P.W. 1, who arranged to raid the house himself, he having previously deputed P.W. 2, a police constable to get into the house and to arrange to play. P.W. 1 says that he never went into the house on any previous occasion. He does not know how long accused 1 has been residing in the house and as for P.W. 2 he admits that accused 1 might have known him. On the other hand, the defence evidence is that accused 1 has been living in the house in question for 30 years with his wife and family and that it is a residential house and that the reason why there was cards play at that house at the time in question was that there was a Thirukalyanam (marriage) festival and certain persons had come to his house and they had a game of cards. Of course it may be that several of the persons present in the house at the time and who admittedly were all playing for money were not the personal friends of accused 1. But the difficulty I feel in the case is the insufficiency of the evidence that this is a common gaming house, that is to say, that it is a public place of resort for persons who want to play games of chance for money. The evidence of the prosecution seems to me to be entirely insufficient to support that. There is no doubt that it must be a place of resort and resort I take it means that people are accustomed to go there. But it does not mean of course that the same person need go more than once but a number of people are in the habit of resorting to the house as a place well known to them where they can get what they want in the way of gambling. That seems to me to be the effect of the decision quoted in Chinniah In Re A.I.R. 1924 Mad.729, Under these circumstances, I think the prosecution has failed to prove that this house in question is a common gaming house and that therefore the conviction must be set aside and the fines, if paid must be refunded. The articles seized from the petitioners will also be restored to them.