The amendments introduced by the Punjab Public Gambling Act expanded the definition of "Common Gaming House" and "Instruments of Gaming" to include premises used for collecting stakes and slips relating to satta gambling, even without evidence of profit to the person using the premises.

D.Falshaw, J.

1. Banu Ram, a shopkeeper of Karnal, and his employee Dina Nath were prosecuted under Sections 3/4 of the Public Gambling Act but they were acquitted by the Court of a Second Class Magistrate and the State has filed an appeal against their acquittal.

2. The facts are quite simple. On the 28th of May, 1959, Sub-Inspector Mit Singh of the City Police Station, Kama), obtained a warrant-under Section 5 of the Act from Mr. M. R. Vaid P.W. 6, Additional District Magistrate, for the search of the shop of Banu Ram on the ground that reliable information had been received that Banu Ram was using his premises for the purpose of satta gambling. In pursuance of this warrant on the following day, the 29th May, S. I. Mit Singh raided the shop in the company of Sunder Lal and Purdaman Singh P.Ws. On the arrival of the Sub-Inspector the accused hastily collected some papers and put them in an iron cash box but the Sub-Inspector, took possession of these documents and other articles including over Rs. 700.00 in cash.

3. Although the accused denied their guilt and denied that the documents recovered had any connection with satta gambling and three witnesses were produced in defence to state that to their knowledge satta gambling was not carried on at the shop of Banu Ram, there seems to be no doubt that in fact most of the documents seized by the Sub-Inspector are satta gambling slips or documents connected with satta gambling. The learned Magistrate, however, acquitted the accused because he found that there was nothing in the prosecution evidence to show than the accused were making any profit out of gambling or that the premises were being used for gambling for profitable purposes.

4. It would seem, however, as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the State, that the learned Magistrate must have been relying on the definition of "Common Gaming House" as it originally stood in the Public Gambling Act of 1867 before it was amended by the Punjab Public Gambling Act (Punjab Act No. 1) of 1929. In the original Act "Common Gaming House" was defined as meaning:

any house or room or tent or enclosure or vehicle or vessel. Or any place whatsoever in which any instruments of gaming are kept or used for gaming purposes - with a view to the profit or gain of any person owning, occupying, or keeping such house, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel or place whether by way of charge for the use of such house, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel, place or instruments or otherwise howsoever.

5. It may also be mentioned that the definition of "Instruments of gaming" was also restricted as "Instruments of gaming" were defined as including any article used as a means or appurtenance of, for the purpose of carrying on or facilitating gaming. Some light appeared to be thrown on what was not to be included in this definition in Section 4 of the Act which still remains unaltered and reads:

Whoever is found in any such house, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel Or place playing or gaming with cards, dice, counters, money or other instruments of gaming, or is found there present for the purpose of gaming, whether playing for any money, wager, stake or otherwise, shall be liable to a flue not exceeding one hundred rupees, or to imprisonment of either description, as defined in the Indian Penal Code, for any term not exceeding one month; and any person found in any common gaming house during any gaming or playing therein shall be presumed, until the contrary be proved, to have been there for the purpose of gaming.

6. With these definitions of "Instruments of gaming" and "Common Gaming House" it certainly would appear to be open to considerable doubt as to whether premises merely used for the collection of stakes and slips relating to bets of the nature of satta gambling would be covered, in the absence of evidence of profit to the person using the premises for such a purpose. It is, however, clear that this loophole was intended