Gambling law presumptions and special evidence rules upheld as constitutional where safeguards limit arbitrary burden shifting.

Sections 6 and 8 of the Gambling Act were upheld as constitutional because their presumptions and special evidentiary rules were treated as part of a scheme to suppress gambling, an activity linked to public order and morality. The Court found that the search and seizure safeguards, the requirement of credible information and inquiry, and the need for judicial satisfaction before the presumption operated prevented the burden-shifting mechanism from being arbitrary or unreasonable. The challenge under Articles 19 and 21 therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether sections 6 and 8 of the Gambling Act, which create presumptions and special evidentiary rules for proving gaming offences, are unconstitutional as infringing Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The Act defines gaming, gaming house, and instruments of gaming in broad terms, but those definitions were held to be directed to the suppression of gambling, which was accepted as an evil affecting public order and morality. The impugned provisions were examined with the surrounding safeguards: entry and search were permitted only on credible information and after inquiry, the officer's suspicion had to be shown to rest on reasonable grounds, and the presumption under section 6 operated only after seizure and judicial satisfaction. The special evidentiary rule in section 8 was treated as part of the same scheme to detect difficult-to-prove offences. The burden-shifting mechanism was therefore not regarded as arbitrary or unreasonable.

Conclusion: Sections 6 and 8 were held to be constitutional, and the challenge under Articles 19 and 21 failed.

---