TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1947 (8) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the conviction against the rest of the accused. Accused 1 to 7, 18 and 19 are the petitioners in this Court. 2. It has now been found-and it is not disputed-that at 5-15 p.m., on 31st January, 1946, accused 1 to 7 were actually playing a game of cards called " three cards " in the precincts of the Lakshmi Club at Karaikudi. Accused 8 to 17 were found merely watching the gaming and they were acquitted by the appellate Magistrate on the ground that it could not be concluded that they were there for gaming purposes only. Accused 18 is the clerk of the club and was found present at the game by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Karaikudi, who made a raid of the club premises on the day. He had with him a sum of Rs. 175 collected from the players.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facie the word " person " includes a natural person as well as an artificial person like a corporation (see The Pharmaceutical Society v. London and Provincial Supply Association, Ltd.(1880)5 A.C. 857). Apart from the prima facie meaning, Section 3, Sub-section (22) of the Madras General Clauses Act which applies to the Madras Gaming Act defines a "person" thus 'person' shall include any company or association of individuals, whether incorporated or not. 5. That this is a familiar legal conception even for purposes of penal provisions is clear from Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code according to which the word " person" includes any company or association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not. The Lakshmi Club is admit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... society. He also relied upon the provisions embodied in Section 14 of the Societies Registration Act that upon the dis solution of any society registered under the Act, the surplus assets shall not be paid to, or distributed among the members of the society, but shall be given to some other society. This contention involves mixing up the club as an entity with its members who have an individual existence apart from the society. The relevant question is not whether any member of the club makes a profit but whether the club as a "person" occupying, or using or keeping the house or room, makes a profit or gain. 8. This question is essentially a question of fact, and both the lower Courts have found that the premises of the Club was utilise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not been seized by them. In the absence of the accounts, there is: no reason not to act upon the evidence of P. W. 1 and on the general probabilities. There was also evidence that besides the members, outsiders were allowed to participate as guests. Even from them the sitting fee was collected, 'vide Ex. P-10 and Ex. P-11. The Club derives enormous income by the collection of sitting fees and this income, after making due allowance for the cost of the playing cards, must be taken to be the profit or gain made by the Club. In fact the real income of the Club appears to be this profit. It was faintly suggested by Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar that the fee collected from each player is in return for the amenities of the Club which the player enjoy....