IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
S. Ravichandran - Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police, Pollachi, Coimbatore - Respondent
Crl.O.P. No. 20181 of 2021 & Crl.MP. No. 10991 of 2021
Decided On : 25-08-2022
Gaming - Quashing of FIR - Tamilnadu Gaming Act, 1930 - Sections 8 & 9
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, President of a Youth Recreation Club, was accused of allowing gambling activities in the club premises. The club had previously been warned by the court not to allow certain activities, but the petitioner claimed that the club had not been involved in any illegal activities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the petitioner did not constitute an offence under the Tamilnadu Gaming Act, 1930. It held that the premises of the club did not qualify as a common gaming house as defined under the Act, and no profit motive was established.
Issues: The main issue was whether the activities in the club premises amounted to an offence under the Tamilnadu Gaming Act, 1930.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of the Act and previous judgments to conclude that gaming is not an offence per se, but is punishable only when carried out in a public place for commercialization purposes and in a common gaming house with a profit motive.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR and allowed the criminal original petition, closing the connected miscellaneous petition.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for records relating to the First Information Report in crime No.596 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police and to quash the same.)
1. This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in crime No.596 of 2021 registered by the respondent police for offences under Sections 8 & 9 of Tamilnadu Gaming Act, 1930, as against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.10.2021, the respondent received information that without getting prior approval from the Government, gambling was played in Youth Recreation Club by using cards. On such information, the respondent and its team entered into the club premises at evening and found that A1 to A11 by sitting in a round table with 52 cards, were playing cards illegally with money. The twelfth accused is the President of Youth Recreation Club, who permitted such gambling in the club. The respondent also seized 52 cards and a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the mahazar, etc. All the accused persons were arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A12 and he is the President of Youth Recreation Club registered under Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The club was commenced on 02.11.2011 and was functioning as Youth Recreation Club. The members of the club are reputed persons in the Society and most of them are business entrepreneurs and professionals in various fields. The club is also having indoor and outdoor games for its members including such as table tennis, carrom, chess, billiards, etc and also outdoor games. Along with other indoor games, members of the club also used to play rummy. In fact, in the year 2011, the respondent summoned the executive members of the club and warned not to allow the members of the club to play rummy. Therefore, the club was constrained to file writ petition in WP.No.26391 of 2011, in which this Court disposed of the same, thereby issued direction that the respondent shall not interfere with the day to day activities of the petitioner's club except on the specific complaint alleging any illegal conduct. The club at any point of time has not involved in any illegal activities like gambling. In spite of the order passed by this Court, the present FIR has been foisted as against the petitioner and others.
4. The learned Government Advocate(crl.side) submitted that already investigation was completed and filed final report.
5. Heard, Mr.M.Guruprasad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the respondent.
6. Even after filing the final report, quashment of FIR is maintainable. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Pandiyarajan and Ors Vs. State and Ors reported in 2020 1 MLJ (cri) 578, in which the Madurai Bench of this Court held as follows:
10. It has been repeatedly held that running of a common gaming house is a primordial requisite before a person could be convicted for an offence under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act and gaming is not an offence per se. Even assuming that the allegations putforth by the prosecution is true, it cannot be constituted an offence as alleged by the prosecution. In these circumstances, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, in view of the facts and circumstance of the case, it would be a futile exercise and there is no scope for conviction. Therefore, the materials collected in support of the charges do not disclose the commission of any of the offence or make out a case against the petitioners/accused and as such, the entire criminal proceedings cannot be sustained.
11. Further, in this case, there is absolutely no mention in the report about anybody running a common gaming house. There is no mention about the first petitioner permitting the use of the premises for gaming activities with a view to derive profit or gain f
Gaming is not an offence per se, but is punishable only when carried out in a public place for commercialization purposes and in a common gaming house with a profit motive.
Profit or gain is a requisite for running a common gaming house under the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, and gaming is not an offense per se.
Gaming is not an offense per se unless conducted in a common gaming house for profit; evidence did not support such circumstances for the petitioners.
Insufficient evidence to classify premises as a gaming house under the Telangana State Gaming Act leads to quashing of proceedings against the accused.
State authorities cannot interfere with lawful recreational activities like card games at clubs unless there is clear evidence of illegal gambling, provided the club adheres to surveillance and regul....
Gambling masquerading - Quash of FIR - Without allowing the prosecution to adduce the evidence oral as well as documentary, it would not be appropriate for Court to quash and set aside both these com....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.