Playing rummy for stakes within club premises violates Kerala Gaming Act. Police authorized for action under Section 5. Writ petition dismissed.

The court concluded that playing rummy for stakes within the club premises is an offense under the Kerala Gaming Act. The Police are permitted to take action against unlawful activities if searches are conducted in compliance with Section 5. The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing cases and ensuring innocent members are not harassed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the game of rummy is a game of skill or chance liable to be regulated under the Kerala Gaming Act.
2. Whether the premises of the club were being used as a common gaming house.
3. Whether the petitioner, as an office bearer of the club, was instrumental in conducting a common gaming house.
4. Whether playing rummy at the club is considered gambling under the Kerala Gaming Act.
5. Whether the game of rummy, even if it is a game of skill, is still prohibited under Sections 7 and 8 of the Kerala Gaming Act.
6. Whether Sections 7 and 8 of the Kerala Gaming Act exclude the game of rummy as a game of skill.
7. Whether the Police are competent to initiate criminal proceedings under the Kerala Gaming Act based on credible information or reasonable doubt about unlawful activities.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Game of Skill or Chance
The judgment examines whether rummy is a game of skill or chance. The Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. K. Satyanarayana held that rummy is predominantly a game of skill and not of chance. The Kerala High Court reiterated that rummy requires skill in memorizing the fall of cards and building up sequences, distinguishing it from games of pure chance like 'three card' games.

Issue 2: Use of Premises as a Common Gaming House
The court analyzed whether the club's premises were used as a common gaming house. According to Section 2(a) of the Kerala Gaming Act, a common gaming house is any place used for profit or gain from gaming activities. The court held that even residential houses or hotel rooms could be considered common gaming houses if used for gaming for profit.

Issue 3: Role of the Petitioner
The petitioner, as the Secretary of the club, was accused of enabling the use of the club as a common gaming house. The court noted that the petitioner was involved in three registered crimes under Sections 7 and 8 of the Kerala Gaming Act, where members were found playing games of chance for stakes, which were seized by the Police.

Issue 4: Gambling Definition under Kerala Act
The court examined whether playing rummy constitutes gambling under the Kerala Gaming Act. It was held that playing rummy for stakes amounts to gambling and is punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the Kerala Gaming Act. The court emphasized that gambling is not protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Issue 5: Prohibition under Sections 7 and 8
The court discussed whether the game of rummy, even if it is a game of skill, is prohibited under Sections 7 and 8 of the Kerala Gaming Act. The court held that playing rummy for stakes is an offence if the Police conducted a search in compliance with Section 5 of the Kerala Act.

Issue 6: Exclusion of Rummy as a Game of Skill
The court noted that the Kerala Gaming Act does not expressly or impliedly exclude rummy as a game of skill from its provisions. The court emphasized that the Government has not issued any notification exempting rummy for stakes from the Act's provisions.

Issue 7: Police Competence to Initiate Criminal Proceedings
The court held that the Police are competent to initiate criminal proceedings under the Kerala Gaming Act if they have credible information or reasonable doubt about unlawful activities. The court emphasized that the Police must comply with Section 5 of the Kerala Act before conducting searches and raids.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that playing rummy for stakes within the club premises is an offence under the Kerala Gaming Act, provided the Police conducted searches in compliance with Section 5. The court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the Police to take appropriate action against unlawful activities while ensuring no innocent members are harassed. The court also distinguished previous judgments that quashed FIRs for playing rummy, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of each case's facts and circumstances.

---