Inspector Of Police, Maradana V. Stanton

Present: Jayewardene A.J.

INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARADANA, v. STANTON.

324-M. C. Colombo, 3,196.

Unlawful gaming-Public place-Common. gaming place-Place to which admission was by ticket on payment-" Submarine dive " -" Dart throwing "-What is a game played for a stake- Lottery-Games of skill played for stake-Chance not necessary element of offence of unlawful gaming.

Chance is not a necessary element in the offence of unlawful gaming.

The game called " submarine dive " (described in the judgment) was held to be a game played for a stake and not a lottery.

Hayley (with him de Jong), for accused, appellant.

M. W. H. de Silva, for Crown, respondent.

July 1, 1924. Jayewardene A.J.-

In this case the accused, appellant, appeals against his conviction under section 5 of the Gaming Ordinance, 1889, for keeping a common gaming place. The accused is the proprietor of " Stanton's Midway Shows," and has been carrying on his show at Darley road, Colombo, for the last few months. The police complain that some of the games conducted there involve unlawful gaming as defined in the Ordinance. The games objected to are called " the submarine dive," " dart throwing," and a game on a miniature bagatelle table. The learned Police Magistrate has convicted the accused holding that there is a mixed element of chance and skill in the games, and as they are played for a stake, they amount to unlawful gaming under the Ordinance. He has also held that the place is a " public place " as defined in the Ordinance. He imposed a fine of Rs. 5 only, as the police who had been shown these games before they were started had not objected to them. The accused appeals on certain points of law, and has also applied for a revision of the Magistrate's finding on the facts. Counsel for the appellant very properly abandoned the ground that the place was not a " public place." The learned Magistrate had very rightly overruled this contention. A place, although a charge is made for admission to it, is nevertheless a " public place," provided members of the public have access to it. The evidence shows that the public have access to it on payment of an admission fee of 10 cents. The only point pressed before me was that the evidence fails to show that the games played were played  

for a stake, and that in the case of "the submarine dive," which the appellant was most anxious to protect, there was a lottery and not a game for a stake. If it amounts to a lottery, the accused cannot be convicted, as there is an element of skill involved in it. "The decision of this point must depend on the view, taken of the facts. The description of the games given by the complainant is not in dispute. The " submarine dive " is played in this way. There is a miniature submarine in a tank almost full of water. It is worked by electricity. There are 48 numbers marked on the inside of the upper edge of the tank. There are twelve tickets each containing four numbers. The price of each ticket varies from Re. 1 to Rs. 10. The holder of the ticket containing the number against which the submarine has stopped is given a movable switch, and asked to switch on, then the submarine dives and keeps going round and round under the water. When it is switched off, this may be done at the will of the person who works the switch, the submarine mounts to the surface, and comes to a standstill. There is a pointer on the submarine which points to the number against which it has stopped. This is the winning number, and the holder of the ticket containing this number wins the prize, which, if the tickets have been sold for Re. 1, would be Rs. 10. The prize is ten times the value of the ticket. Rs. 2 on every twelve rupees goes to the management. There is a certain amount of skill involved. For, if the person who has to manipulate the switch knows exactly when to switch off, he can get the " submarine " to stop opposite to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document