High Court judges differ on definition of ‘public place’ for gambling offences

The division bench of Justice Bilal Nazki and Justice FM Reis,while referring the case to a full bench,observed that “the definition of public place” was misplaced as Section 33 (w) of the Act requires licensing or controlling places of public amusement and entertainment even if a club is meant only for members. “Prima facie,it would be public amusement within the meaning of the Act,” the judges observed.

The case pertains to a petition filed by Angare Pujari,secretary of Shivam Social Group Club in Goregaon (West),seeking to quash an FIR against the club following a raid on December 30,2008,by the Social Service Branch of the Mumbai Police. Following the raid,the police had arrested 84 persons,whom the club claimed to be members,playing a game of rummy.

Additional public prosecutor Usha Kejriwal told the court that more than Rs 7 lakh was recovered from the club and not all of the 84 persons found to be gambling were members of the club. She also informed that a chargesheet has been filed in the case and the matter is pending before the trial court.

Petitioner’s lawyer SA Dhamale,however,argued that even if there was gambling,the gambling took place within the premises of the club and it does not attract prosecution. The court,however,observed that it prima facie appears to be an offence under the Gambling Act.

Dhamale then cited the earlier division bench judgment,which had held that “once it is established that the premises used for card club by the petitioner do not form public place,and are not the place for public amusement within the meaning of the Act,it is not necessary for the court to go into other points.”

The present division bench,however,did not agree with these views. The petitioner also argued that rummy has been held as a game of skill by the Supreme Court and hence outside the scope of Gambling Act. He alleged that the police took every single rupee of the members and workers of the club.