<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (7) TMI 739 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290928</link>
    <description>Proceedings under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930 were quashed because the alleged card game was said to have occurred in private farm land, not in a public street, public place, thoroughfare, or common gaming house. The Court noted that the statutory offence requires the gaming activity to fall within those specified locations and that a common gaming house involves a place used for gaming for profit or gain. As the prosecution version did not establish those essential ingredients, gaming could not be treated as an offence on these facts and continuation of the investigation was held to be an abuse of process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2020 09:31:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=625809" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (7) TMI 739 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290928</link>
      <description>Proceedings under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930 were quashed because the alleged card game was said to have occurred in private farm land, not in a public street, public place, thoroughfare, or common gaming house. The Court noted that the statutory offence requires the gaming activity to fall within those specified locations and that a common gaming house involves a place used for gaming for profit or gain. As the prosecution version did not establish those essential ingredients, gaming could not be treated as an offence on these facts and continuation of the investigation was held to be an abuse of process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290928</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>