2002 (9) TMI 901 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the premises of the Elite Club qualifies as a "Common gaming house" under the A.P. Gaming Act, 1974.
2. Whether the game of Rummy constitutes a game of skill or chance.
3. Applicability of Section 15 of the A.P. Gaming Act, 1974 to the game of Rummy.
4. Legality of the FIR registered under Section 3 of the A.P. Gaming Act, 1974.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the premises of the Elite Club qualifies as a "Common gaming house" under the A.P. Gaming Act, 1974:
The prosecution argued that the Elite Club was making huge profits by allowing people to play Rummy, thereby qualifying the premises as a "Common gaming house" as defined under Section 2(1) of the A.P. Gaming Act, 1974. The police raid found significant amounts of money being collected from players, which supported the claim that the club was making a profit from these activities.

2. Whether the game of Rummy constitutes a game of skill or chance:
The defense contended that Rummy is a game of skill, citing precedents such as K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of T.N. and Executive Club v. State of A.P. The Supreme Court in K. Satyanarayana v. State of A.P. had earlier held that Rummy is predominantly a game of skill, as it requires memorization and strategic card play. The court reiterated that Rummy is not a game of pure chance, distinguishing it from games like 'three-card' games which are purely chance-based.

3. Applicability of Section 15 of the A.P. Gaming Act, 1974 to the game of Rummy:
Section 15 of the Act exempts games of skill from the provisions of the Act. The court emphasized that Rummy, being a game of skill, falls under this exemption. The judgment referenced the Supreme Court's decision in K.R. Lakshmanan, which held that competitions involving substantial skill are not considered gambling activities.

4. Legality of the FIR registered under Section 3 of the A.P. Gaming Act, 1974:
Given that Rummy is a game of skill, Section 15 of the Act exempts it from the Act's provisions. Therefore, the FIR registered under Section 3 of the Act was deemed invalid. The court held that even if the club was making profits from the game, it does not transform the premises into a "common gaming house" as defined by the Act. The court concluded that the petitioners were not running a common gaming house since the Act does not apply to games of skill like Rummy.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the FIR in Crime No. 252 of 2002 of Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, registered under Section 3 of the A.P. Gaming Act, 1974. The court also ordered the return of the property seized from the petitioners.