1920 Present : De Sampayo J.

MEEDIN v. PERIES.

226-P. C. Colombo, 27,308.

Lotteries Ordinance, No. 8 of 1844-Penal Code, s. 288-Lottery- Cheetu club.

Accused started a club for drawing a monthly lottery. The proposals were as follows : There were to be 150 members, who were to contribute each a sum of Rs. 2.50 a month. There was to be a monthly drawing of tickets, and during the first twenty months the members who drew the winning tickets were to be paid Rs. 50 and cease to be members. During the next ten months the winner of the ticket was to be paid Rs. 75, and was, similarly, to go out. In the thirtieth month the whole scheme was to be concluded, and the 120 members who would be left without having drawn any money in the meantime were to be paid Rs. 75. Provision was also made for a member borrowing a sum not exceeding one-third of his contributions, and for paying to the heirs of a member who might die within the thirty months the amount of his contributions, together with an additional sum of Re. 5.

Held, that the accused was guilty of a breach of section 5 of the Lotteries Ordinance, No. 8 of 1844, and section 288 of the Penal Code.

THE facts are set out in the judgment.

Muttunayagam, C.C., for Solicitor-General, appellant.

A. St. V. Jayawardene, for accused, respondent.

June 2, 1920. DE SAMPAYO J.-

In this case the question of the legality of what is known as a cheetu club comes up again for consideration.. The accused was charged under, section 288 of the Penal Code and section 5 of the Lotteries Ordinance, No. 8 of 1844, with having kept an office or place at Ratmalana for the purpose of drawing a monthly lottery, and with having published proposals for the drawing of such a lottery. The Police Magistrate held that the drawing in this particular case was not a lottery and acquitted the accused, and the Solicitor-General has appealed.

In November, 1918, the accused started a club, which he called " Danarakshaka Samitiya," with himself as Secretary and his wife as Treasurer. There were to be 150 members, who were to contribute each a sum of Rs. 2.50 a month. There was to be a monthly drawing of tickets, and during the first twenty months the members

who drew the winning ticket were to be paid Re. 50 and cease to be members. During the next ten months the winner of the ticket was to be paid Rs. 75 and was, similarly, to go out. In the thirtieth month the whole scheme was to be concluded, and the 120 members who would be left without having drawn any money in the meantime were to be paid Rs. 75. The rules also contained provisions for lending to a member any sum not exceeding one-third of his contributions, for paying to the heirs of a member who might die within the thirty months the amount of his contribution, together with an additional sum of Rs. 5, and for paying to the member who might draw the last cheetu or ticket the sum of Rs. 75, together with an additional sum of Rs. 5 as a present from the club. These provisions are put forward on behalf of the accused as showing that the club was a benevolent or provident association and not a cheetu club in the ordinary sense. But if the organization was, in fact, in the nature of a lottery, these provisions would not prevent its being declared illegal. For, otherwise, a person may start an actual lottery and may yet evade the law by adding to the scheme a few small offers of an innocent kind.

It would seem that the scheme was bound to end in disaster, as it was based on an actuarial fallacy. The total contribution for thirty months would be Rs. 10,162.50, and the total amount of prizes would be Rs. 10,735, so that the accused would have to pay out of pocket Rs. 592.50. His counsel suggests that he is a philanthropic person, and intended to benefit his fellow-villagers out of his own moneys. This kind of charity, however, provokes suspicion. There were other risks which would make the scheme