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 wer