Supreme Court: Criminal Courts Can Only Correct Clerical Errors, Not Review Judgments  ||  Supreme Court: Arbitration Right Remains Despite Arbitration Clause Becoming Inoperable  ||  Supreme Court: Minor Can Repudiate Guardian’s Voidable Sale by Conduct After Majority  ||  Delhi HC Rejects Plea Against BCCI Team Named 'Team India', Terms it a Sheer Waste of Time  ||  Bombay HC: No Absolute Right for Citizens to Access Public Offices  ||  Delhi HC: Suit Withdrawal After Compromise Doesn’t Result in Executable Decree  ||  Delhi HC: ITSC Abolition Doesn’t Void Settlement Pleas Filed Between Feb 1–Mar 31, 2021  ||  Rajasthan HC: State Must Set Up Trauma Centre, Art Institute; Temple Board Can Only Assist  ||  Kerala HC: LIC Cancer Cover Starts From First Diagnosis After Waiting Period, Not Expert Opinion  ||  Kerala HC: Spouse’s Ill Treatment of Children is Cruelty under Section 10(1) Divorce Act    

Play Games 24X7 Private Limited and Ors. Vs. Ramachandran K. and Ors. - (High Court of Kerala) (11 Oct 2019)

Playing rummy for stakes amounts to gambling and comes under the purview of Gaming Act

MANU/KE/4158/2019

Commercial

Present review petitions are filed by third parties seeking review of judgment by which this Court held that "playing rummy for stakes" within the club premises is an offence under the Kerala Gaming Act, 1960 and it shall be open for the police to take appropriate action after complying with Section 5 of the Act. While delivering the aforesaid judgment, it has also been observed that though under Section 14A of the Act, the Government can exempt by way of notification in the Gazette any game from the provisions of the Act subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified in the notification, no such notification has been issued by the Government exempting the playing of rummy for stakes from its purview.

In fact in State of A.P. v. K. Satyanarayana, the Apex Court held that it cannot be said that rummy is a game of chance and there is no skill involved in it. However, it was observed that if there is evidence of gambling in some other way or that the owners of the house is making a profit or gain from the game of rummy or any other game played for stakes, the offence may be brought home. A perusal of the impugned judgment would indicate that, present Court was not concerned with the manner in which online rummy for stakes was being played. If rummy is played with stakes, as decided in K. Satyanarayana or as provided under the notification, there is side betting, it amounts to gambling and the Gaming Act clearly applies.

There is no dispute about the fact that, in view of the notification, playing rummy is excluded from the provisions of the Act and in the impugned judgment the Division Bench has also held that the element of skill is predominant than the element of chance. But the question is whether if rummy is played for stakes, will it amount to violation of the provisions of the Gaming Act or not. This aspect of the matter has to be decided on a case to case basis. What is the manner in which the games are conducted and how it is being conducted through online methods and what are the stakes involved in the matter are all issues which may arise for consideration. If it is just playing rummy without any side betting, the notification protects the parties involved in it. But, in a case where rummy is played for stakes, the issue might be different which has to be dealt with on a case to case basis. Review petitions are dismissed.

Relevant : State of Andhra Pradesh vs. K. Satyanarayana and Ors. MANU/SC/0081/1967

Tags : RUMMY   STAKES   OFFENCE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved