In order to sustain the conviction for the offence alleged against A1 and others, it has to be proved that A1 is owner of the premises and that he was running the gaming activity, which is prohibited. The evidence on record goes to show that the mediators report did not describe what is the nature of the game that was being played, though in the evidence it was stated that it is a three-card game and in and out card game which are prohibited. Therefore, in order to sustain the conviction for the offence alleged against the accused, the prosecution has to prove that there was a gambling. In the absence of the particulars of game that was being played, which was not mentioned in the mediators report, the oral evidence is of no avail. Further more, even if it is a case of playing of Rummy, the law is settled that it is not a game of chance. There is no proof that A1 was the owner of the premises and running the premises for gain or organizing the gaming. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the acquittal of the accused recorded by the Court below does not call for interference.
