2016 (10) TMI 1380 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Allows Review Petition, Modifies Conditions for Skill Games, Upholds Petitioner's Rights

The court addressed a delay in filing a Review Petition, interpreted conditions set by a Single Judge, and considered the applicability of Section 176 of ... Interference of police interpreting the condition imposed as restricting members of the club even from playing games of skill such as Gin rummy, with stakes - It is contended that a game of skill could be permitted to be played, with stakes - HELD THAT:- Section 176 of the Karnataka Police Act was not brought to attention and it was completely overlooked. From a reading of Section 176, it does appear that persons taking part in such games of skill could also wager. Whether rummy, a game of cards, could be considered as a game of skill had come up for consideration before the Supreme Court. In the said judgment, in the case of STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VERSUS K. SATYANARAYANA & ORS. [1967 (11) TMI 109 - SUPREME COURT], the court has held that rummy is not entirely a game of chance but is 'preponderantly' a game of skill. In a further judgment in DR. KR. LAKSHMANAN VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU [1996 (1) TMI 336 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court has, while also noting the earlier judgment in K. Satyanarayana, supra, equated a game of rummy to that of chess or golf, which are pure games of skill. Therefore, it could be said that rummy is indeed a game of skill, though some element of chance is involved. Preponderantly, as held by the Supreme Court in K. Satyanarayana, rummy is a game of skill. Therefore, if the words 'without stakes' are deleted from the judgment of this court, the petitioner's purpose would be served and there would be no chance of misinterpretation. The benefit of Section 176 could then not be denied to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Review Petition is allowed. Issues:Delay in filing Review Petition, Interpretation of conditions imposed by Single Judge, Applicability of Section 176 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963.Delay in filing Review Petition:The judgment begins by addressing a delay of 19 days in filing the Review Petition, which is subsequently condoned by the court. The petitioner initially approached the court in its writ jurisdiction regarding the club's recreational activities and the conditions imposed by the Single Judge. An appeal was made before the Bench to modify the conditions, leading to the current Review Petition.Interpretation of conditions imposed by Single Judge:The Single Judge had issued specific directions regarding installing CCTV cameras, issuing identity cards, and restricting certain activities in the club. The Bench modified these conditions, deleting one condition and allowing games of skill without stakes. However, the petitioner contended that the police were misinterpreting the conditions, particularly regarding playing games of skill with stakes. The petitioner argued that such interpretation contradicted Section 176 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.Applicability of Section 176 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963:The petitioner highlighted Section 176 of the Karnataka Police Act, which clarifies that games of skill and wagering in such games are permissible. The court acknowledged that games like rummy involve skill, as established by previous Supreme Court judgments. By deleting the phrase 'without stakes' from the conditions, the court ensured that the petitioner's members could play games of skill, including rummy, with stakes, aligning with the provisions of Section 176. The court allowed the Review Petition, emphasizing that the purpose of the petitioner would be served without risking misinterpretation.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the delay in filing the Review Petition, the interpretation of conditions imposed by the Single Judge, and the applicability of Section 176 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. By allowing the Review Petition and modifying the conditions to permit games of skill with stakes, the court upheld the petitioner's rights in accordance with relevant legal provisions and established case law.