# STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. K. SATYANARAYANA & ORS

- **Citation:** [1968] 2 S.C.R. 387
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968
- **Bench:** M. H!Dayatullah, C. A. Vaidialingam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-andhra-pradesh-v-k-satyanarayana-ors-4212
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Hyderabad Gambling Act (2 of 1305F), ss.
3, 7 and 14-Extra
clt?'ges levied by i:/ub for
~laying cards, and playing beyond prescribed hour-Common gambling house if constituted-Rummy, if a game
of chance.
The police raided the premises of a club and found respondents
1-5 playing "Rummy" for stakes, counters and money on the table and
playing-cards with the players.
Respondent 6 the Treasurer of the Clllb.
was holding the stake money.
Respondent 7-the Secretary of the club
was not present then.
All the respondents were convicted by the Trial
Court, but the comiction was set aside by the High Court. In appeal to
this Court, the appellant-State contended that this club was a common
gambling house as a fee of 5 points per game was charged. by the club,
the playing-cards were supplied at an extra charge of Rs. 3. there was a
sitting fee of Re. 1 per person who joined the game, and if the game
continued beyond a certain time a late fee was levied; and further that
the presumption under s. 7 of the Gambling Act had not been repelled;
but on the other hand it .had been confirmed by the making
of this
charge by the club.
Dismissing the appeal.
·
HELD :
This club was not a common gambling house.
The presumption under s. 7 even if it arises in this case, was successfully repelled
by the evidence which had beon led. [392 DJ
Just as some fee is charged for the games of billiards, ping-pong, tennis
etc. an extra charge for playing cards (unless it is extravagant) would
not show that the club was making profit or gain so as to render the club
into a common gambling house. Similarly, a late fee is generally charged
from members who use the club premises beyond the scheduled time
This is necessary because ·the servants of the club who attend on the
members h3''e to be paid extra remuneration by way of overtime, and
expenditure on light and other amenities has to be incurred beyond club
house. The accounts showed that the sitting fee of 50 paise was charged
per person..
This was not such a heavy charge in a Members' Cub as
to be described as an attempt to make a profit or gain for club. Of
course, if it had been proved that 5 points per game was charged, that
might have been con•idered as an illegal charge sufficient to bring the
club within the definition. [392 G-393 CJ
The protection of s. 14 was not available in this case. Rummy is not
a game entirely of chance like the ·~ct' game. It requires certain
amount of skill because the fall of the cards has to be mernoried and the
buifding up of Rummy requires con.siderable skill in holding and discarding cards.
It is mainly and preponderantly a game of skill.
The
chance id Rummy is of the same character as the chance in a deal at
a game of bridge.
In fact in all games in which cards are shuffled and
dealt out, there is an element of chance, because the distribution of the
cards is not according to any set pattern but is dependent upon how the
cares find their. place in the shutlled pack. From this alone it cannot be
'2id that Rummy is a game of chance and there is no skill involved in
it.
Of course. if there is evidence of gambling in some other way or
.
Jn
..
388
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1968] 2 S C.R.
the owner of the house or club is making a profit or gain from the game
of Rwnmy or any other game played for stakeo, the offence may be
hrought home. [o93 F-394 Bl
CRIMI!<AL· APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
40 of 1965.
A
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
August 4, 1964 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crilninal
B
Revision Case No. 479 of 1964.
P. Ram Reddy and B: Panhasarathy, for the appellant.
A. S. R. Chari, K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and K. R. Chaudhuri,
for the respondents.

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
v.
K. SATYANARAYANA & ORS.
November 22/23, 1967
(M. H!DAYATULLAH AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.)
Hyderabad Gambling Act (2 of 1305F), ss.
3, 7 and 14-Extra
clt?'ges levied by i:/ub for
~laying cards, and playing beyond prescribed hour-Common gambling house if constituted-Rummy, if a game
of chance.
The police raided the premises of a club and found respondents
1-5 playing "Rummy" for stakes, counters and money on the table and
playing-cards with the players.
Respondent 6 the Treasurer of the Clllb.
was holding the stake money.
Respondent 7-the Secretary of the club
was not present then.
All the respondents were convicted by the Trial
Court, but the comiction was set aside by the High Court. In appeal to
this Court, the appellant-State contended that this club was a common
gambling house as a fee of 5 points per game was charged. by the club,
the playing-cards were supplied at an extra charge of Rs. 3. there was a
sitting fee of Re. 1 per person who joined the game, and if the game
continued beyond a certain time a late fee was levied; and further that
the presumption under s. 7 of the Gambling Act had not been repelled;
but on the other hand it .had been confirmed by the making
of this
charge by the club.
Dismissing the appeal.
·
HELD :
This club was not a common gambling house.
The presumption under s. 7 even if it arises in this case, was successfully repelled
by the evidence which had beon led. [392 DJ
Just as some fee is charged for the games of billiards, ping-pong, tennis
etc. an extra charge for playing cards (unless it is extravagant) would
not show that the club was making profit or gain so as to render the club
into a common gambling house. Similarly, a late fee is generally charged
from members who use the club premises beyond the scheduled time
This is necessary because ·the servants of the club who attend on the
members h3''e to be paid extra remuneration by way of overtime, and
expenditure on light and other amenities has to be incurred beyond club
house. The accounts showed that the sitting fee of 50 paise was charged
per person..
This was not such a heavy charge in a Members' Cub as
to be described as an attempt to make a profit or gain for club. Of
course, if it had been proved that 5 points per game was charged, that
might have been con•idered as an illegal charge sufficient to bring the
club within the definition. [392 G-393 CJ
The protection of s. 14 was not available in this case. Rummy is not
a game entirely of chance like the ·~ct' game. It requires certain
amount of skill because the fall of the cards has to be mernoried and the
buifding up of Rummy requires con.siderable skill in holding and discarding cards.
It is mainly and preponderantly a game of skill.
The
chance id Rummy is of the same character as the chance in a deal at
a game of bridge.
In fact in all games in which cards are shuffled and
dealt out, there is an element of chance, because the distribution of the
cards is not according to any set pattern but is dependent upon how the
cares find their. place in the shutlled pack. From this alone it cannot be
'2id that Rummy is a game of chance and there is no skill involved in
it.
Of course. if there is evidence of gambling in some other way or
.
Jn
..
388
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1968] 2 S C.R.
the owner of the house or club is making a profit or gain from the game
of Rwnmy or any other game played for stakeo, the offence may be
hrought home. [o93 F-394 Bl
CRIMI!<AL· APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
40 of 1965.
A
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
August 4, 1964 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crilninal
B
Revision Case No. 479 of 1964.
P. Ram Reddy and B: Panhasarathy, for the appellant.
A. S. R. Chari, K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and K. R. Chaudhuri,
for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hidayatullah, J.
The State
of Andhra Pradesh appeals by
special leave against the judgment of the High Court of A11dhra
Pradesh in which, accepting a reference by the Sessions Judge, the
conviction of the respondents under ss. 4 and 5 of the Hyderabad
Gamblin~ Act (2 of 1305F) ordered by the 5th City Magistrate
at Secunderabad has· been set aside.
The short question in this case is whether the premises of a
Club known as the "Crescent Recreation Club" situated in Secunderabad were being used as a common gambling house and whether the several respondents who were present at the time of the
raid by the police could be said to he gambling therein.
The
facts of the case are as follows :-
On May 4, 1963. the police headed by Circle
Inspector
Krishna~wami raided the premises of the club.
They found respondents 1-5 playing a card game known as "Rummy" for stakes.
At the time of the raid, there were some counters on the table
as also money and of course the playing-cards with the players.
Respondent No. 6, the Treasurer of the Club, was also present
and was holding the stake money which is popularly known a'
"kitty".
The 7th respondent is the Secretary of the Club ,md he
has been joined as an accused, becatLse he was in charge of the
management of the club.
The kitty which the sixth rcspo~dcnt
held was Rs. 74.62nP and a further sum of Rs. 218/- was recovered from the table of the 6th respondent.
66 counters were on
the table and some more money was found with the persons who
were indulging in the game.
The evidence of the Circle Inspector
is that he had' received credible information that the premises of
the club were being used as a common gambling house and he
raided it and found evidence, because instruments of gambling
were found and the persons pre5ent were actually gambling.
The
Magistrate convicted all the seven respondents and sentenced them
to various fines, with imprisonment in default.
The respondents
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
A. P. STATE v. SATYANARAYANA (Hidayatullah, !.)
389then filed an application for revision ,before the Sessions Judge,
Sec\mderabad who made a reference to the High . Court under
s. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, recommending the
quashing of the convfotion and the setting aside of the sentences.
This recommendation was accepted by the learned single Judge in
the High Court and the present appeal is brought against his
judgment by special leave granted by this Conrt. ·
The Hyderabad Act follows in outline the provisions of the
Public Gambling Act, 1867 in force in India.
Section 3 of the
Act defines a "common gambling house".
The translation of the
Urdu text placed before us was found to be inaccurate but we
have compared the Urdu definition with the definition of "common
gaming house" in the Public Gambling Act, and we are of opin\on
that that represents a truer translation than the one included in
the official publication.
We accordingly quot!;Jhe definition from
the Indian Act, adding thereto the explanation which is not to
be found in tlie Indian Act.
"Common gambling-house" according to the definition means :
"any house, walled enclosure,
room or place in
which cards, dice, tables or other instruments of gaming are kept or used for the profit or gain of the person
owning, occupying, using or keeping such house, enclosure, room or place, whether by way of charge for the
use of the instruments of gaming, or of the house enclosure, room or place. or otherwise howsoever."
Explanation : "The word 'house' includes a tent and
all enclosed space."
The contention in regard to this definition is that the evidence
clearly disclosed that the club was being used as a common gambling house. and therefore the penal provisions of the Act were
clearly attracted.
We are concerned additionally with several
sections from the Gambling Act which need to be seen.
Section
4, which follows in ouJine the corresponding section in the Public
Gambling Act, provides for penalty for an owner, occupier or
person using common gambling house and includes within the
reach of the section persons who have the care or the management of or in any manner assist in conducting, the business of.
any such house, enclosure or open space.
The members of the
club which is a ("Members' Club") would prima facie be liable
but as they are not before us, we need not consider the question
whether they should also have been arraigned in the case or not.
The Secretary and the Treasurer, who were respectively accused
Nos. 7 and 6 ,were so arraigned as it was thought they came
within the reach of s. 4 because they were in the care a11d management of the club itself.
Then there is s. 6 which again is similar
\
390
SUPREME ~OURT REPORTS
[1968] 2 S.C.R.
but ~ot entirely similar to.s. 5 of the Public Gambling Act.
This
A
provides for entry for search and .:ntry by police.
It lays down
as follows :-
"If the District Magistrate or the Magislrate of the
First Class or the District Superintendent of Police or
the Inspector of Police in the city and the suburbs of
Hyderabad. on credible infonnation and after such
enquiries as he may deem necessary, has reason to ~
lieve that any house or premises or enclosure or an open
space is used as a common gambling house he shall be
empowered to enter or authorise any police officer, not
below the rank of a Sub-Inspector to cater with such
assistance as may be found necessary, by night or by
day, and by force, if necessary, any such house or prec
mises or enclosure or open space, and it shall be proper
to arrest all persons whom the said Magistrate or the
Superintendent or Inspector of Police finds therein or to
illlow the Police Officer so authorised
to arrest such
persons whether
or not
they arc actually gambling.
and
Seize or authorise the said Officer to seiZe all instruments of gambling and all moneys and securities for
money and valuable articles, reasonably
suspected to
have been used or intended to be used for the purpose
of gambling and which- are found therein, and search
or authorise such Police Officers to search all parts flf
the house or premises ot enclosure or open space, which
he or such officer shall have so entered when he or such
officer has reason to believe that any instruments o[
gambling are concealed therein and also the
persons
whom he or such officer had so arrested a:id seize and
keep in his possession all such instruments of gambling
as are found in the search.
Explanation : ........................ "
B
c
D
E
F
:-!ere the Circle Jnspecor was an officer author'sed to enter upon
G
and. search the premises of the club and therefore his actbn "as
fully covered by the section. He effected the arrest of all
the
per;ons who were present( respondents
1-6)
and added to the
number the Secretary who although not present on the premises
at the time was, according to him, responsible for the offence
under s. 4 of the Oct. Session 7 of the Act then provides for a
11
presumption which the law allows to be drawn from the. finding
of cards, etc. in a house in which a search according to the term>
of s. 6 of the Act as taken place. That section reads as follows :-
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
II
A. P. STATE v. SATYANARAYANA (Hidayatullah, /.)
391
"When any cards or dice or table or other instruments or means of gambling have been found in any
house or premises or enclosure or open space entered
or searched, in accordance with the provision of s. 6 or
have been found
with any of the persons therein, it
shall be evidence, until the countary is proved, that such
house, premises or enclosure or open space is used as
a common gambling house and the persons found therein
were present for the purpose of gambling although no
play was actually witnessed by the Magistrate or the
police officer or any of his assis.tants."
This section gives rise to a presumption from the fact of a search
under s. 6 after credible information that persons present in the
house are there for the purpose of gambling even
though
no
play may be actually witnessed by the raiding party. In the
present case on the appearance of the police, it is admitted, the
players stopped their play and the arrests were promptly made of
all the persons present round the table who had ~ards, counters
and the money with them.
The learned Magistrate who tried the case was of the opinion
that the offence was proved, because of the presumption since it
was not successfully repelled on behalf of the present respondents.
In the order making the reference the learned Sessions Judge made
two points : He first referred to s. 14 of the Act which provides
that nothing done under the Act shall apply to any game of mere
skill. wherever played and he was of opinion on the· authority of
two cases decided by the Madras High Court and
one of the
Andhra High Court that the game of Rummy was a game of skill
and therefore the Act did not apply to ·the case.
He also held
that there was no profit made by the members of the club from
the charge for the use of cards and the furniture and the room
in the club by the players and 'therefore the definition of 'common
gara.bling house'
did nor
apply to the case.
In accepting the
reference, the learned single Judge in the High Court did not
express any opinion upon the question whether the
game of
Rummy can be described as a game of skill.
He relied upon "the
second part of the proposition which the Sessions Judge had suggested as the ground for acquitting the accused, namely, that the
club was not making a profit but was only charging something
as a service charge and to this we shall now refer.
Mr. Ram Reddy relies, firstly, upon the definition of 'common
gambling house' in the Hyderabad Act and contends ihat in this
case there is ample evidence to prove that the club was making
a profit or gain from the persons who play Rummy on its premises, pointing out at ihe same time that the charge was put
upon strangers to the club as well as members. He also submits
..
392
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[196Sj2SCR
that the presumption which arises under s. 7 of the Gambling Act
has not been successfully repelled and on the other hand it ha1
been confim1ed by the making of this charge by the club.
In support of his case that the club was making a profit or
_gain from the game of Rummy he draws attention to four matters
which in his opinion bring this club within the said definition.
The first was a charge of 5 points per game which according to
him was being levied on each game of Rummy.
He next points
out that playing cards were supplied to the players by the club
at an extra charge of Rs. 3/- and there was a sitting fee of
Re. 1 /- per person from those who joined the game.
He points
out further that if the game ·continued beyond a certain time in
the night, a late fee was also levied.
In addition, he says, that
non-members were also required 10 pay and, therefore, this club
must fall within the definition of a common gambling house.
In
support he relies upon a decision of the Madras High Coun 1•1 re
Somas1mdaram Chettiar( 1 )
In our opinion the points made by Mr. Ram Reddy do
no:
prove this club to be a common gambling house.
The ;>resumption under s. 7, even if it arises In this case, is successfully repelled
by the evidence which has been led, even on the
side
of the
prosecu 1 ion.
To begin with, there is nothing to show that a fee of 5 points
per game wa> being charged.
Only the Sub-Inspector (P.W. 6)
deposes to it but there is nothing to show what his source ot
information was.
At the time the game was going o:., he wa<
not present and when ne arrived on the scene, the game had stopped.
1'he <iccount-books of the club do not show any such lcvv
from the persons and in the absence of any entry. we cannot
hold this fact to be sufficiently proved.
As regards
the
extra
charge for playing cards we may say that clubs usually make an
extra charge for anything they supply to their members because
it is with the extra payments that the management of the club is
carried on and other amenities arc provided.
It is co011man1'
known that accounts have to be kept, stocks have to be purchased
and maintained for the use of the members and service is given.
Money is thus collected and there is expenditure for running of
each section of the establishment.
Just as some fee is charged
for the games of billiards, ping-;iong, tennis, etc, an extra charge
for playing cards (unless it is extravagant) would not show that
the club was making '.l profit or gain so as to render the cluh
into a common gai;.bling house.
Similarly, a late fee is generally
eharged from members who use the club premises
heyond
the
scheduled .:me.
This is necessary. hecause the scrvanLs of the
ii l A. IR. 19-IS fv1ad 2M.
A
II
c
u
r:
F
G
II
A
B
c
[)
E
G
H
A. P. STATE v. SATYANARA.YANA (Hidayatullah, I.)
393
club who attend on the members have to be paid extra remuneration by way of overtime and expenditure on light and other
amenities has to be incurred beyond the club hours.
Such a
charge is usual in most of the clubs and we can take judicial
notice of the fact.
This leaves over for. consideration only the sitting fee as it is
called.
In this connection, the account books of the club have
been produced before us and they show that a foe of 50 paise is
charged per person playing in the card room.
This to our opinion is not such a heavy charge in a Members' Club as to be
described as an attempt to make a profit or gain for the club.
Of course, if it had been proved that 5 points per game were
charged, that might have been considered as an illegal charge
sufficient
to bring the club within the definition.
As we have
already pointed out, the levy of that charge has not been proved.
The other charges which the club made do not establish that this
was a common gambling house within the definition.
It is submitted by Mr. Ram Reddy that non-members also
play and further that the club provides no other amenities besides
making it possible for members and non-members to play the
game of Rummy on the premises.
We think that the evidence on
this part is not quite satisfactory.
No doubt one witness has
stated that chess is also played, but that does not prove that
amenities other than card games are catered for by the club.
But on the other side also there is no definite evidence that there
is no other amenity in this club but the playing of card games.
In these circumstances, to hold that the club does not provide
other amenities is tantamount to making a conjecture which is
not permissible in a criminal case.
We are also not satisfied that the protection of s. 14 is not
available in this case. Th.e game of Rummy is not a game entirely
of chance like the 'three-card' game mentioned in the Madras case
to which we were referred.
The 'three card' game which goes
under different names such as 'flush', 'brag' etc. is a game of
pure chance.
Rummy, on the other hand, requires certain
amount of skill because the fall of the cards has to be rr:emorised
and the building up of Rummy requires considerable skill
in
holding and discarding cards.
We cannot, therefore, say that
the game of Rummy is a game of entire chance. It is mainly
and preponderantly a game of skill.
The chance in Rummy is
of the same character as the chance in a deal at a game of bridge.
In fact in all games in which cards are shuffled and dealt out,
there is an element of chance, because the distribution of the
cards is not according to any set pattern but is dependent upon
how the cards. find their place in the shuffled pack. . From this
alone it cannot be said that Rummy is a game of chance and there
' '
J94
SUPRIWE Cf)URT REPORTS
[1968) 2 SCR.
is no skill involved in it.
Of course, if there
is evidence
of
A
,gamJ:>ling in some other way or that the owner of the hous~ or
the club is making a profit or gain from the game of Rwnmy or
any Olhcr game played for stakes, the oience may be brOUJ?ht
home.
In this case, these elements are missing and therefore we
think that the High Court was right in
accepting the reference
.as it did:
B
The appeal fails and is dismissed.
Y.P.
Appeal dismissed.