J.S.SEKHON.J - (1.) THE sole controversy in this revision petition is, whether the playing of cards at some stakes would amount to gaming wagering or betting and thus fall under the provisions of section 13 of the Public Gambling Act.
(2.) THE brief resume of facts relevant for the disposal of this petition is that on 1-6-1983 at about 5 30 p.m., A.S.I. Sushil Kumar on the basis of secret information, after joining Anil Kumar P.W. went to the Leisure Valley, Sector 10, Chandigarh. Ram Surup accused-petitioner and Goverdhan Lal were found playing cards and Rs. 100/- lying on the floor in between them. These two persons threw the cards at the sight of the police party. They were apprehended. Another amount of Rs. 210/- was recovered from Ram Sarup from the personal search and Rs. 300/- from Goverdhan Lal. The trial Court convicted both Ram Sarup and Goverdhan Lal for an offence under section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, but released each one of them on probation under section 13 of the Probation of Offenders Act besides administering due admonition. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, confirmed the order of conviction and sentence of the trial Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.
(3.) SIMILAR controversy was settled by the Allahabad High Court in Baldeo and others v. Rex, AIR 1952 Allahabad 817, by holding as under : "In order that a person be convicted under Section 13 of the Act it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the accused were gaming and that the place where they were gaming was a public street, place or through fare. 'Gaming' has been defined in the Act as including a wager or betting (except wagering or betting upon a horse race and under certain circumstances). Gaming, wagering or betting have all one common feature that the game is a game of chance and played with stakes. In, order, therefore, that gaming be established, the prosecution must establish : (i) that the game being played was a game of chance, and (2) that it was being played with stakes. The mere proof that same game of cards was being played and that some, money was found in possession of the accused is not enough to establish that they were gaming. (2) In the present case all the appellants were holding three cards in their hands. It was said that they were probably playing game of flash. This was a mere guess work and there being no definite evidence about the nature of the game that was being played, it could not be said that the applicants were gaming within the meaning of Section 13 Public Gambling Act as amended by U.P. Act (1991) of 1917. Further, there is no evidence that the accused were playing the same with stakes," ;