Statutory presumption under the Kerala Gaming Act referred to a larger bench amid conflicting single-judge interpretations.

Conflicting single-judge views on the scope of the statutory presumption under Section 6 of the Kerala Gaming Act, 1960 prompted reference to a larger bench. The court noted disagreement on whether seizure of cards and cash from persons playing cards could, by itself, attract the presumption that the premises was a common gaming house and that the persons present were there for gaming. Because the issue raised an important question of law and required authoritative clarification, the matter was referred to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for placement before a larger bench. The quash petition was not decided on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conflicting single-judge decisions on the effect of the presumption under Section 6 of the Kerala Gaming Act, 1960, required reference to a larger bench for determination of the correct law.

Analysis: The order noted two inconsistent lines of authority on whether mere seizure of cards and cash from persons found playing cards could attract the statutory presumption that the premises was a common gaming house and that the persons present were there for gaming. In view of the contradiction between the earlier and later single-judge decisions, and because the issue involved an important question of law on the scope of the statutory presumption, the matter was considered fit to be resolved authoritatively by a larger bench.

Conclusion: The question was referred to the Honourable Chief Justice for placement before a larger bench.

Final Conclusion: The order did not decide the quash petition on merits and instead directed reference of the legal issue for authoritative resolution by a larger bench.

Ratio Decidendi: Where coordinate single-judge decisions on the same statutory presumption are conflicting, the correct course is to seek determination by a larger bench.

---