SALIGRAM KHETRY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case three accused persons Saligram Khetry, N.H. Balakani and R.N. Swinton were charged under Section 44, Calcutta Police Act (Bengal Act 4 of 1866). Khetry was the proprietor of a show known as The Grand Variety Show and Balakani and Swinton were his assistants who helped him in running that show. On 14 January 1932 an application was made to the police authorities by the manager of that show for permission to carry it on at 124, Bow Bazar Street, for a period of three months and to conduct various side shows and games of skill including a game known as the "dart game." The permission asked for was granted by the police on 19 January 1932. But on 16 February 1932 an order was issued by the police authorities countermanding the sanction as regards the particular game known as the dart game on the ground that it did not belong to the classes of game which are predominantly games of skill. This order was duly communicated by a police officer on the following day to the accused Saligram Khetry at about three o clock in the afternoon. Another police officer was sent out at 5 p.m. to ascertain whether the game was still being carried on and upon his reporting that it was still in operation, another police officer who was the first witness for the prosecution in the Court below, went to the show ground and found that the game was in progress in one of the stalls and he took possession of the apparatus and arrested all the persons found in the stall. As the outcome of that the three persons, whose names I have given, were charged under Section 44 as already stated. That section provides as follows: Whoever, being the owner, occupier or having the use of any house, room or place, opens, keeps or uses the same as a common gaming house; and whoever, being the owner or occupier of any house or room, knowingly and wilfully permits the same to be opened, kept or used by any other person as a common gaming-house; and whoever has the care or management of or in any manner assists in conducting the business of any house, room or place so opened, kept or used; and whoever advances or furnishes money for the purpose of gaming with persons frequenting such house, room or place, shall be liable, on summary conviction before a Magistrate to a fine not exceeding Rs. 500 or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding three months.

(2.) The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate found all the accused persons guilty under Section 44. In making the order he said: It is not disputed that Saligram is the manager and the other two accused persons are his assistants. The accused Saligram is fined Rs. 50 in default two weeks rigorous imprisonment. The accused Balakani and Swinton are fined Rs. 5 each, in default five days rigorous imprisonment each. The instruments of gaming and the money that have been seized are confiscated under Section 48 of the said Act.

(3.) The only question before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate was whether or not the accused could avail themselves of the exception provided in Section 50-A, Calcutta Police Act. That section was inserted into the Calcutta. Police Act by the Bengal Public Gambling (Amending) Act No. 4 of 1913. Section 50-A reads as follows: "Nothing in Section 44 to Section 50 shall apply to any game of mere skill, wherever played." The learned Magistrate in his judgment said The only point for determination is whether this dart game constituted gaming or not. It is not in dispute that the game was being played.