Insufficient evidence to classify premises as a gaming house under the Telangana State Gaming Act leads to quashing of proceedings against the accused.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner/ accused No.1 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C. S.R.No.2889 of 2023 pending on the file of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally (arising out of FIR No.432 of 2022 of P.S. Golconda), registered for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Telangana State Gaming Act, 1974 (for short ‘Act’).

2. Heard Sri S.Ganesh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused Nos.1 to 28 played the game of cards by betting money in a common gaming house i.e., premises bearing H.No.8-1-68/50/C/54, 55, Vinayakanagar, Shaikpet, Golconda, Hyderabad. Hence, accused Nos. 1 to 28 were arrested and an amount of Rs.49,01,378/- was seized from the possession of accused No.1.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that though the petitioner is in no way concerned with the offences alleged, the Police have foisted the present complaint against him with all false allegations, without following the procedure laid under the Act and no evidence is produced by the prosecution to show that the petitioner is involved in illegal gambling. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in D. Krishna Kumar and another v. State of Andhra  Pradesh, 2002 (5) ALT 806 wherein, it is held that the game of playing rummy is a game of skill and the game of playing cards is not an offence per se, and as such, no case is made out against the petitioner. He further relied on the judgments of this Court in Criminal Petition Nos. 5169 and 9645 of 2023, wherein, paragraph Nos.14 and 15 of judgment of this Court in Tholem Narsimha Rao and another v. State of Telangana and another, 2023 (1) ALD (Crl.) 326 (TS) were referred and the same reads as follows:

14. In view of the principle laid down in the above said citations, it cannot be said that the petitioners- accused Nos.6 and 7 have committed the offence under Section 3 of the A.P.Gaming Act, more particularly when there is no person, who was in- charge and in possession for collecting money towards usage charges. Therefore, Section 3 of the A.P.Gaming Act cannot be fastened on the petitioners-accused Nos.6 and 7 as the house, wherein they are alleged to have been playing Cards is not a gaming house.

15. The petitioners-accused Nos.6 and 7 were charged for the offence under Section 4 as well as Section 3 of the A.P. Gaming Act. Therefore, it is to be examined whether facts narrated by the prosecution would amount to committing of an offence under Section 4 of the Act. In the case on hand, according to the prosecution, the petitioners were present for the purpose of gaming in a common gaming house shall on conviction may suffer for simple imprisonment for six months, which may extend to three years. Unless the place of the offence is specified to be a common gaming house, Section 4 of the A.P. Gaming Act will not attract.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner was found playing cards in the premises by investing money and the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner shall only be known after conducting full-fledged trial, hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Having heard both sides and perused the material on record, it appears that the judgment of Tholem Narsimha Rao’s case (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the present case also, though the petitioner was present for the purpose of gaming in the said premises according to the prosecution, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner, along with other accused, was playing cards by betting money in the said premises, hence, the said premises cannot be termed as a gaming house as defined under Section 2(1)