JAGATSING KISHORSINGH DARBAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These matters came up for hearing before the single Judge of this court. D. A. Desai 1 before whom these matters came up for hearing felt a doubt as to the correctness of the view expressed by the Bombay High Court in Emperor Dattatraya Shankar Pranjpe 25 Bombay Law Reporter 1089 and in Emperor v. Chimanlal Sankalchand 47 Bombay Law Reporter 75. He also felt that it was necessary to examine what was the correct ratio of those decisions. He felt that in view of the amended definition of the expression common gaming house by the Bombay Amending Act No. 14 of 1959 these decisions require reconsideration. He also in his referring judgment given in Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 490 and 491 of 1971 expressed his view and he feels that the view taken by the single Judge of the Bombay High Court (Chitle J.) in Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 1964 decided on 14th January 1965 supported his view. He has therefore observed in his referring judgment as under:-

(2.) Mr. H. K. Thakore appearing for the petitioners in the aforesaid two revision petitions though at one stage intended to raise a few questions ultimately has raised only one question and has frankly stated that the decision of that question only survives for consideration in these revision petitions. That question raised is whether the place raided in the instant cases can be said to be a common gaming house within the definition of that phrase given in sec. 3 of the Act. He has urged that in view of the amended definition of the common gaming house by Amending Act No. 14 of 1959 profit or gain must have direct relation with the use of the room house or place and/or with the instruments of gaming. Independent of it if one expects only profits from the gaming itself it will not be sufficient to term that house or place or room as a common gaming house. In short he has relied upon the observations made by our learned Brother D. A Desai J. in his referring judgment and the observations made by Chitle J. in the aforesaid criminal appeal referred to by us earlier.

(3.) Mr. Chhaya appearing for the State has urged that so far as the second part of the definition of common gaming house is concerned essentially the wording is the same as in the unamended definition of common gaming house. He has urged that the Legislature has advisedly used the words otherwise howsoever. Those words go with the words profit or gain and more particularly with the word gain. Those words cannot be given any restricted meaning. They are the words of wide connotation and amplitude. Thus the Legislature has advisedly used these words to take within its sweep any possible manner of profit or gain and did not want to give a restricted meaning that the manner of securing profit or gain must be a manner like the charge for the use of a place house or room or instruments of gaming. All conceivable modes of earning either profit or gain were intended to be covered and that is why such words of widest connotation and amplitude have been used by the Legislature.