IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-25106 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 2.8.2011. Yash Pal ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. R.K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This petition is directed against the judgment dated June 14th, 2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, (Ad-hoc), Mansa affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated March June 10th, 2009 of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Budhlada whereby petitioner was convicted under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.50/- with default stipulation. 2. Allegations, in brief, against the petitioner and his co-accused (non-petitioner) were that on January 15th, 2004 they were playing cards near Water Works, Budhlada when they were apprehended by the Police party. 3. The solitary submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that prosecution failed to establish that petitioner was gaming and in the absence of the same, offence under Section 13 of the Act cannot be made out. 4. A perusal of evidence of the prosecution shows that the petitioner was apprehended by the Police while playing cards. There is no evidence worth the name to prove that he was gaming at that time in so far as no money was staked. 5. In Ram Sarup vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-25106 of 2010 (2) 1991(1) RCR 350, the petitioners-convicts were acquitted by this Court on the short ground that there was no evidence to conclude that they were playing a game of chance. 6. Playing cards is the cheapest, and most common pastime particularly by the old, and poor persons. Gaming would always involve staking of money. Unless there is evidence that the persons concerned were gaming in a public place by playing cards with stakes of money, the mischief of Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act would not come into play. There in fact is authority for the proposition that the game played must be a game of chance and not of skill or ability. In some authorities, Rummy, for example, has been held to be a game of skill and not of chance and therefore, outside “gaming”. 7. This Court finds it difficult to resist the temptation to point out that casinos are being set-up, there are floating casinos in Goa, there are clubs all over the country for the rich and the elite having card rooms where game of chance are played with heavy stakes and gaming goes on with immunity. What a paradoxical situation this is. Perhaps the outdated Public Gambling Act needs to be amended or replaced to bring it in tune with modern times. However, that's for the powers that be. 8. In view of this, the petition is accepted. Orders under challenge are set-aside. Consequently, the petitioner is acquitted of the charges. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 2.8.2011. SN Whether refer to reporter: Yes/No