Allowed

M/s.The Rajendra Prasad Memorial Club Tenali, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Dec 2019WP/23734/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that playing rummy is a game of skill and not gambling, and police interference is violative of fundamental rights. The Club was permitted to conduct rummy with stakes, provided it installs C.C.T.V. cameras connected to the police station at its own expense for monitoring, allowing police reasonable inspection powers.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Respondent Police not to interfere with the game of rummy with stakes; permitting the installation of C.C.T.V. cameras connected to the Police Station for observation by the Petitioner a

M/s.The Rajendra Prasad Memorial Club… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

Writ Petition No.23734 of 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed, questioning the action of respondent police in not allowing petitioner club to organize and conduct thirteen cards game/syndicate/rummy, bridge with stakes, declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 19 and 21 of constitution of India, consequently direct the respondent police not to interfere with card game of rummy (thirteen card game), whatever be the stakes, directing the petitioner to install video cameras, record entire recreation activities in the club, preserve the said data at least for a period of fortnight, so that police can check the footage and said C.C T.V cameras shall be connected with jurisdictional police station and Office of Superintendent of Police, Guntur District for observation.

¶5

The petitioner club was registered under Societies Registration Act with avowed objectives inter alia of developing social and knowledge activities and undertaking sports, thereby promoting entertainment, conducting free medical and health facilities for the members, managing library or community hall, conducting sports, other cultural activities and other indoor and outdoor games etc. So the petitioner club is conducting the above activities for the last many years very successfully. Due to its multifarious activities, the reputation of petitioner club is going up without bounds and this club is very famous in coastal Andhra. The members of Club meet every day and participate in various activities, under taken by petitioner club.

¶6

While so respondent Nos.3 and 4 raided the premises of petitioner club, causing hindrance to activities of petitioner club, respondent police are not allowing members of petitioner club to play game of rummy. It is

¶7

2 MSM, J

¶8

wp_23734_ 2016

¶9

customary for members of petitioner club and their guests to play game of rummy with stakes/syndicate (thirteen card game) under Gaming Act, allowing play rummy with stakes in the premises of petitioner club would not attract the place of gaming house as defined under A.P Gaming Act.

¶10

The Supreme Court in State of A.P v. K. Satyanarayana¹ , held that game of rummy is not entirely of chance and it requires certain amount of skill, because fall of card has to be memorized, building up of rummy required considerable skill in holding and discarding cards. The Supreme Court in K.R Lakshmanan v. State of Tamilnadu² held that competition which involves substantial skill is not gambling activities and as such, it is fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19 (1) of Constitution of India.

¶11

Based on the same, High Court of Andhra Pradesh held on number of occasions that A.P Gaming Act does not apply to game of rummy. The said view was reflected in D. Guntur Kumar and another v. State of A.P³ , relying upon number of decisions of High Court of Andhra Pradesh, more particularly, in W.P No.8782 of 2011 and batch, W.P No.24533 of 2011 and batch, W.P No.308 of 2019 and W.P No.1014 of 2019 disposed of W.P No.13521 of 2019 on 15.10.2019 directing respondent police authorities not to interfere with card game of rummy (thirteen card game) with certain directions.

¶12

Interference by police while playing rummy by members of club or by its guests is violative of personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 19 and 21 of Constitution of India, unless the police are restrained from such interference, it is difficult for them to protect their fundamental right, consequently sought the relief as stated above.

¶13

1 1968 Cri. LJ 1009

¶14

2 1996 AIR 1153

¶15

3 2002 (5) ALT 806

¶16

wp_23734_ 2016

¶17

3 MSM, J

¶18

Moreover, the respondent police contended that they have no objection to permit petitioner club to install C.C T.V cameras in the club premises, there is a facility in the police station and Office of Superintendent of Police, Guntur District to record C.C footages by giving connectivity, subject to bearing expenses by petitioner club itself. While the police are vested with power to inspect the premises under Sections 5 and 6 of A.P Gaming Act, requested to pass appropriate order.

¶19

During hearing, the learned Counsel for petitioner club Sri K.V Rajendra Prasad admitted to bear all expenses for installation of video cameras and C.C T.V cameras, bear expenses for connecting the same with Tenali police station, Tenali and Office of Superintendent of Police, Guntur District.

¶20

It is an undisputed fact that petitioner club is registered under Societies Registration Act, organizing various activities, including its members to play rummy.

¶21

The Apex Court in earlier judgment in K.R Lakshmanan (2^nd cited supra) and State of Bombay v. R.M.D Chamarbaugwala and R.M.D Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India and this Court in D. Guntur Kumar (3^rd cited supra), took a view that rummy is not gambling under the provisions of Hyderabad Gaming Act.

¶22

As seen from the said judgment: the provisions in Hyderabad Gaming Act are not in pair material with the provisions of the Act. Section 7 of A.P Gaming Act provided a presumption that when cards, dice or table or other instruments of gambling are found in a house or premises, it shall be evidence until the contrary is proved, that such house or premises is used as a common gambling house. In fact in that case evidence on the aspect that the club was making profit was led.

¶23

wp_23734_ 2016

¶24

4 MSM, J

¶25

The trial court held that the presumption was not successfully repelled by the accused in that case. After the Sessions Judge made a reference to the High Court, the accused i.e. the club, was acquitted on the ground that it was not, making profit, but was charging some amount as service charges. In that connection the Supreme Court, considered the question relating to the charge against the accused club, that by charging five points on each game of Rummy it was making profit.

¶26

Later in K.R Lakshmanan (2^nd cited supra) and R.M.D Chamarbaugwala’s case the Supreme Court took a different view that rummy is only a game of skill and not gambling within the meaning of gambling defined under Gaming Act and club cannot be treated as gambling house, where the members of club are playing rummy, only which is a game of skill. If these principles are applied to the present facts of the case, interference of police with game of rummy by members in the club would amount to interference with the liberty of members of club. Therefore, a direction can be issued not to interfere with game of rummy being played in the petitioner club.

¶27

The main grievance of petitioner is that on account of frequent raids by respondent police on petitioner club, members of club are facing lot of difficulty, in playing rummy (thirteen card game) and their entertainment is being disturbed by respondent police, due to raids, which amounts to violation of freedom of members of petitioner club. However the respondent police are entitled to inspect the premises as and when they receive any information or on recording its belief that some unlawful activities are going in the club in terms of Sections 5 and 6 of A.P Gaming Act.

¶28

wp_23734_ 2016

¶29

Regarding providing C.C T.V cameras, providing connectivity to Tenali police station and Office of Superintendent of Police, Guntur District, respondent police have no objection, subject to bearing expenditure. The petitioner club admitted to bear expenses for installation of C.C T.V cameras in the club premises and for providing connectivity with C.C T.V cameras to Tenali police station and Office of Superintendent of Police, Guntur District. In view of admission and request made in the writ petition, the petitioner club is permitted to provide C.C T.V cameras and connectivity with C.C T.V cameras to Tenali police station and Office of Superintendent of Police, Guntur District at their own costs under the supervision of competent police officer nominated for this purpose by Superintendent of Police, Guntur District.

¶30

Therefore, the petitioner club is directed to make an application to Superintendent of Police, Guntur District to nominate a competent officer to oversee the activities of installation of C.C T.V cameras in the premises of petitioner club and providing connectivity to C.C T.V cameras with Tenali police station and Office of Superintendent of Police, Guntur District and on making such application, Superintendent of Police, Guntur District is directed to depute a competent police officer for the purpose referred above and respondent police are directed to monitor the activities of petitioner club through video cameras connected to Tenali police station and Office of Superintendent of Police, Guntur District, while permitting the police officials to exercise their power under Sections 5 and 6 of A.P Gaming Act, whenever there is a reasonable belief, recording the same.

¶31

wp_23734_ 2016

¶32

6 MSM, J

¶33

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶35

__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶36

Dated: 16.12.2019