ARJOON SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is, reference made under Section 438, Criminal P.C., by the Sessions Judge of Hooghly recommending that the conviction of 15 persons, one Arjoon Singh and 14 others, under Section 4, Act 2 (B.C.) of 1867 and the fine imposed thereunder may be set aside. The case has been argued before me in great detail on behalf of the petitioners as well as on behalf of the Crown.

(2.) The only question that arises for determination in the case is whether the game that was being played at the time when the petitioners were arrested was "gaming" within the meaning of the Act. The definition in the Act does not really define "gaming," but merely indicates what it is like and excludes wagering or betting on some particular occasion and in particular circumstances and also excludes a lottery." In Hari Singh V/s. Emperor [1907] 6 C.L.J. 708 it was held that a game of skill is not an offence under the Act but a game of chance is, and that if a game involves a certain amount of skill as well as a certain amount of chance, if the chief element of the game is skill it is not an offence. This decision was passed in 1907. It was incidentally approved of in Bengali Shah V/s. Emperor [1913] 40 Cal. 702. In Ram Newaz Lal v. Emperor [1914] 15 Cr. L.J. 276 the learned Judges referring to Section 10 of the Act which said: Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Act contained shall be held to apply to billiards, whist or any other game wherever played observed: The criterion is not whether it is a game of mere chance, but whether it is a game of mere skill and we may point out that the word "mere" is used in legal language in its meaning derived from its Latin origin and imports the meaning of "pure skill"....There is a further point which we wish to set out and which was not apparently discussed in Hari Singh's case and that is that the games of skill referred to in Section 10 obviously refer to a game where there are two parties pitting their skill against each other.

(3.) The Allahabad High Court dealing with a case under Section 12, Act 3 of 1867 in which Hari Singh's case appears to have been cited held that the words of the Bengal Act were materially different and held that under the other Act the conviction was all right as the game was not a game of mere skill. Bengal Act 2 of 1867, however, was amended by Bengal Act 4 of 1913 by which amongst other alterations Section 10 was repealed and a new section numbered 11-A was introduced which is in these words: Nothing in this Act shall apply to any game of mere skill wherever played.