Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Anaiyur Ilanthendral Recreation ... vs The District Superintendent Of ...

Madras High Court|13 September, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

This writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction, directing the 2nd respondent to dispose the petitioner's representation dated 01.03.2017 and to direct the 3rd respondent shall not disturb the petitioner association frequently under the guise of inspection without there being any reliable information as to the illegal activities of the association or its members or the guests.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is running a recreation club where their members play rummy without stakes and that the police are very frequently interfering and harassing them. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the aforesaid prayer.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Section 3 of the City Police Act, 1888 defines the Common Gaming House Section 45 of City Police Act prescribes the punishment for using a place as a Common Gaming House. A reading of both the provisions show that in a place where game is played on wager or bet, the police have got right to interfere and prosecute the persons who run the place under Section 45 of the City Police Act. In this case the petitioner is running a recreation club for its members, wherein according to the petitioner game of rummy is played without stakes.
5. However, the learned Special Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the police are not causing any disturbance to the activities of the petitioner.
6. His submission is recorded. It is also seen that a Division Bench of this Court in Director General of Police, Sate of Tamil Nadu, Mahalakshmi Cultural Association (2012(2) CTC 48 4) has gone into this aspect of recreation club permitting the recreating club to play rummy without stakes and held as follows:
24. On the basis of the above discussions, we arrive at the following conclusions: i.The game of rummy (13 card) is only a game of skill even though an element of chance is also involved.
ii.In the event rummy is played by the members or the guests without stakes, the provisions of the Chennai City Police Act are not attracted. iii.In the event rummy is played by the members or the guests with stakes, the provisions of the Chennai City Police Act are attracted. iv.In the event of Club/Associaiton either allows its members or guests to play rummy with stakes or make any profit or gain out of such gambling, the Police has the authority to invoke the provisions of the Chennai City Police Act. v.In order to ascertain as to whether the premises is used as a gaming house for gambling, the Police is entitles to invoke Section 23 of the Act.
In view of the above, this Court directs that
(i).The petitioner association shall not indulge in any activity by allowing its members or the guests to play rummy (13 cards) with stakes and make profit or gain.
(ii).The Police are entitled to take action in the event of any illegal activity is carried on in the Association premises.
(iii).The Police shall not disturb the petitioner-association frequently under the guise of inspection without there being any reliable information as to the illegal activities of the association or its members or the guests.
With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
13.09.2017 Index:Yes ak/rm To
1. The District Superintendent of Police, O/o. The District Superintendent of Police, Ram Nagar, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karumathampatti, Somanur, Coimbatore District.
3. The Inspector of Police, Annur Police Station, Coimbatore District.
M.S.RAMESH.J, ak/rm W.P.No. 24077 of 2017 13.09.2017
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Anaiyur Ilanthendral Recreation ... vs The District Superintendent Of ...

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
13 September, 2017