JUDGMENT--This revision application arises out of the prosecution for offences under the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. The nine applicants Are charged for committing offences under sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 5th Court, Amravati, who tried the case convicted the accused-applicant No, 9 Shaikh Umer son of Shaikh Nabbu for offences under sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 250 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The accused-applicants 1 to 8 were convicted for an offence under section 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act and were each sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati who heard the appeal against these convictions and sentences confirmed the convictions and the sentences passed by the trial Magistrate. 3. The case of the prosecution was that one Abdul Hamidkhan, who was working as a Police Sub-Inspector attached to the Local Investigation Branch of the Amravati Police received information that gambling goes on in the house of the applicant No.9 Shaikh Umar and that he was keeping a common gaming house. He, therefore, caused a watch to be kept on that house and on 14-3-1964 when he was in the City Kotwali Police Station, he got information at about 1-30 p. m. that gaming was actually going on in that house at that time. He passed on this information to Mir Akbarali who was then attached to the City Kotwali Police Station as a Sub-Inspector of Police. On this information being received, Mir Akbarali took an entry in the station diary and both these police officer, namely, Mir Akbarali and Abdul Hamidkhan left for the house of the applicant No. 9 Shaikh Umar. On the way they picked up two persons Umarsha and Kesheo to act as panchas and when this party reached the house of the applicant No. 9 Shaikh Umar they found that all the nine applicants were seated in the house and were playing a game of cards with stakes. According to the prosecution, the applicant No. 9 was taking out amount out of the stakes, called not money. According to the prosecution, the applicant No. 9 was taking out amount out of the stakes, called not money. Then the raiding party surprised the applicants and caught them on the spot and seized the articles like cards and money which were lying in front of them. Seizure memos and panchanamas were prepared and the P. S. 1. Mir Akbarali lodged a report in the City Kotwali Polioe Station. Further investigation was made by P.S.I. Deshmukh of the Nagpuri Gate Police Station and the applicants were sent for trial for offences punishable under sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. 4. An the applicants pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them. The defence of the accused-applicants 1, 2, 5 and 9 was that it being a New Years Day they were playing cards for fun and were not gambling. The applicants accused Nos. 3,4, 6,7 and 8 pleaded that they were not in the house of the applicant No.9 at all at that time and were not apprehended at the spot. 5. The evidence that was led consisted of the two Sub-Inspectors Mir. Akbarali and Abdul Hamidkan and the Panch Umarsha. Besides this, the Investigating Officer P. S. I. Deshmukh and a Bill Collector from the Municipal Committee were also examined. The raid was made by the police party under the authority conferred upon them by the order of the District Magistrate, Amravati dated 25th June 1962 Exh. M. There is no dispute regarding the validity of the sealch warrant or that the police officers was not competent or authorised to make the search. The learned trial Magistrate has proceeded on the basis that since the police officers were competent to take search and make seizure under section 6 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, the matter fell within the provisions of section 7 of the Act and a presumption was raised that the house where the applicants 1 to 9 were said to be playing was a common gaming house and further that the applicants 1 to 9 who were found therein were then present for the purpose of gaming and it is on the basis of this presumption under 7 that the learned trial Magistrate seems to have decided the matter. He has also referred to the evidence of the two P. S; Is. He has also referred to the evidence of the two P. S; Is. and the Panch witness Umarsha for the purpose of showing that the nine applicants were gambling and out of them applicant No.9 Shaikh Umar Was taking out nal money. The property seized was the playing cards and money. These, according to the learned trial Magistrate, were instruments of gaming and as such raised a presumption under section 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. He seems to have placed reliance on the evidence of the two police officers on the ground that the accused persons did not allege any grievance about the police officers or the Panch. It is rather difficult to find out from the judgment of the trial Mi1gistrate whether he has convicted the applicants-accused on the basis of the evidence of the two police officers and the Panch of whether he convicted them on the basis of the presumption raised under section 7 of the Act. No clear findings have been given by the learned Magistrate in that respect. He seems to hold that the accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 9 were playing cards and the remaining accused were in the adjacent room and since there was an opening from one from to the other, all the nine applicants could be said to be present at the time of the raid and that raised a presumption that they were gaming until the contrary was proved. He has observed that the accused persons have not led any defence and he could not rely on the bare word of the accused persons, referring perhaps to their examination under section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal against the convictions and sentences has dealt with the matter as being governed by section 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. Since the Sub-Inspectors raided the house under the authority of general order issued by the District Magistrate under section 6 of the Act, a presumption under section 7 could be raised and unless satisfactorily rebutted by the accused, the accused could be held guilty of the offence of gaming. Since the Sub-Inspectors raided the house under the authority of general order issued by the District Magistrate under section 6 of the Act, a presumption under section 7 could be raised and unless satisfactorily rebutted by the accused, the accused could be held guilty of the offence of gaming. Before the appellate Court also no dispute was raised that the house in question was entered into and searched, under the authority conferred on them under section 6 of the Act and the validity of the said entry under section 6 was not challenged- The learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, turned to the provisions of section 7 and took up the question as to whether any instruments of gaming had been seized in the house. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has referred to the evidence of the two Sub-Inspectors who deposed that when they went to the said house, they saw all the nine applicants playing cards and that the applicant No. 9 was taking out the nal money from the stakes and that amounts were lying in front of the applicants. The panch witness Umarsha did not fully corroborate the Sub-Inspectors in that respect and his evidence only shows that the applicants Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 9 were playing cards and the other applicants were in the adjoining room. On the basis of the evidence of the two Sub-Inspectors, the learned Additional Sessions Judge observes that the applicants were playing with cards and that some amounts were lying in front of the applicants and that the applicant No 9 was taking out nal money from the stakes and, therefore, all these things would induce the Sub-Inspectors to suspect that the applicants were gambling and the cards and the money were nothing but instruments of gaming. According to him, therefore, this evidence clearly established that the Sub-Inspectors had seized the instruments of gaming from the said house and, therefore, the presumption under section 7 of the Act came into play and until the contrary was proved, it had to be held that the said house was used as a common gaming house and that the applicants who were present in the said house, were there for the purpose of gaming. In view of this, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that all the applicants were gaming at the time when the raid was made and hence they had committed an offence punishable under section 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. 7. Dealing separately with the case of the applicant NO.9, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that the house which was raided stood in the name of his wife and it was rented to the applicant No.2 Dhyaneshwar. He also observed that the evidence showed that the applicant No.9 was collecting the nal money and accordingly he held it established that applicant No.9 was using the said house as a common gaming house. He, therefore, convicted him for the offence under section 4 of the Act. It would thus appear from the judgments of the two Courts below that the provisions of section 7 of the Act regarding the presumption to be raised was predominant in their minds and the case seems to have been decided on the basis of the said presumption. In fact, it does not appear that the Courts were much impressed by the positive evidence showing all the applicants gaming with stakes. Earlier the learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that the Sub-Inspectors observations that the applicants were playing with cards and that some amounts were lying in front of the applicants and the applicant No.9 was taking out nal money from the stakes induced these Sub-Inspectors to suspect that the applicants were gambling and that the cards and the money were nothing but instruments of gaming. 8. However, from this judgment, it does not appear clear as to whether the learned appellate Judge sought to raise the presumption because instruments of gaming were found in the house in the raid carried out by the Sub-Inspectors or whether the articles which were found were suspected to be instruments of gaming. These are in fact two different matters provided in section 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. The learned Appellate Judge, however. These are in fact two different matters provided in section 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. The learned Appellate Judge, however. has also observed that the evidence clearly establishes that the said two Sub-Inspectors have seized instruments of gaming from the said house and then says, on proof of these two ingredients the presumption afforded by section 7 would come into play and it will have to be held until the contrary is proved that the said house was used as a common gaming house and that the applicants were present there for the purpose of gaming. I, therefore, understand this order to mean that according to the prosecution, playing cards and the money which were seized during the raid were instruments of gaming and, therefore, the presumption under section 7 of the Act was raised since the police Sub. Inspectors had effected the raid under the authority of the order passed under section 6 of the Act. 9. So far as the applicant No.9 is concerned, the evidence of P. W. 2 Mir. Akbarali and P. W. 4 Umarsha shows that he was not taking out the nal money. The amounts seem to have been seized both from the pockets of the accused as well as from the table but they were mixed up and the P. S. I. Abdul Hamidkhan P. W. 3 is not in a position to say as to how much amount was seized from the pocket and how much from the table. There is as such no evidence to show that the applicant No.9 Shaikh Umar was taking out the nal -money out of the stakes and there is also no sufficient evidence to show that these persons were playing with stakes. However, a presumption is sought to be raised under section 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act that the house was a common gaming house and all these persons found in that house were there for the purpose of gaming and it is thus that the applicants are made liable. 10. However, a presumption is sought to be raised under section 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act that the house was a common gaming house and all these persons found in that house were there for the purpose of gaming and it is thus that the applicants are made liable. 10. Under section 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act if the house is entered under section 6 and if any instrument of gaming has been seized in any house or about the person of anyone found therein, the seizure of such instrument of gaming shall be evidence, until the contrary is proved, that such house is used as a common gaming house. Secondly, even if the articles seized are not instruments of gaming, but if the Court is satisfied that the Police Officer who entered such house under section 6 of the Act had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the thing so seized was an instrument of gaming then also the seizure of such thing shall be evidence until the contrary is proved, that such house was used as a common gaming house. The second presumption that is raised by section 7 of the Act is that the persons found in such house, entered under section 6, were then present for the purpose of gaming, although no gaming was actually seen by the officer entering under section 6 of the Act. 11. The second part of section 7 of the Act can be left out of consideration since the prosecution has not put the case on that footing. It is not the case of the two Police Officers who entered the house under section 6 of the Act that the things found in the house were suspected to be instruments of gaming. The learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge have also not said that they were satisfied that the Police Officers who entered the house had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the thing seized was an instrument of gaming. The presumption under section 7, therefore, can be raised in this case only by showing that on entering the house, instruments of gaming were seized in that house and if that is established, then alone the presumption under section 7 could be raised and the further presumption that the persons found therein were then present for the purpose of gaming can also be raised. 12. 12. "Gaming" has been defined in section 3 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, according to which, "gaming" includes wagering or betting - except wagering or betting upon a horse race under certain conditions. The expression "instruments of gaming" has been defined thus: "In this Act the expression "instruments of gaming" includes any article used or. intended to be used as a subject or means of gaming, any document used or intended" to be used as a register or record or evidence of any gaming, the proceeds of any gaming, and any winnings or prizes in money or otherwise distributed or intended to be distributed in respect of any gaming." "Common gaming-house" is defined in section 3 of the Act and sub-clause (ii) of that definition says: "In this Act, "Common gaming-house" means- (ii) in the case of any other form of gaming, any house, room or place whatsoever in which any instruments of gaming are kept or used for the profit or gain of the person owning, occupying, using or keeping each house, room or place by way of charge for the use of much house, room or place or instrument or otherwise howsoever." 13. In order, therefore, to prove that a particular house or place is a common gaming-house, it has to be shown that in that house instruments of gaming are kept or used for the profit or gain of the person owning, occupying, using or keeping such house by way of charge for the use of such house etc. There is no such direct evidence in the present case and it is sought to be shown as a common gaming-house only on the basis of the presumption under section 7. Under section 4 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, whoever opens, keeps or uses any house, room or place for the purpose of a common gaming house is liable to be punished with imprisonment and fine and under section 5 of the Act, whoever is found in any common gaming-house gaming or present for the purpose of gaming, is liable to be punished. Again under section 5 of the Act, there is a presumption raised that any person found in any common gaming house during any gaming therein shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have been there for the purpose of gaming. Again under section 5 of the Act, there is a presumption raised that any person found in any common gaming house during any gaming therein shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have been there for the purpose of gaming. Under section 4 of the Act, therefore, the first thing that is required to be proved is that a house, room or place is a common gaming house and one way of proving the same is by saying that in the said house instruments of gaming are kept or used for the profit or gain of the person owning, occupying, using or keeping such house etc. the second way which has been provided by the Act is by raising the presumption under section 7 which can be raised when the house, room or place is entered under an order under section 6 of the Act and instruments of gaming are found on such entry. If it is proved in either of these two ways, then the person who keeps such a common gaming house is made liable under section 4 of the Act. 14. Under section 5 of the Act, a person who is found in any common gaming house gaming or present for the purpose of gaming is made liable to punishment. But even though the person is not shown to be actually gaming or to be present for the purpose of gaming, if he is found there while gaming is in progress, a presumption is raised that he was there for the purpose of gaming, which Can be rebutted by showing to the contrary. Section 7 raises a further presumption that if a house, room or place is entered under section 6 of the Act and instruments of gaming are seized from the said house, then not only is it a common gaming house but all persons found therein are presumed to be present there for the purpose of gaming even though no gaming was actually seen at that place by the officer entering the house. 15. In this case, the lower Courts seem to have taken recourse to the provisions of section 7 of the Act for raising the presumption and not to the positive evidence required under sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. 15. In this case, the lower Courts seem to have taken recourse to the provisions of section 7 of the Act for raising the presumption and not to the positive evidence required under sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. It will, therefore, have to be seen whether the Courts below were right in raising such a presumption and on the basis of the presumption to convict the accused-applicants. 16. In order to raise the presumption, it has got to be shown that the things seized from the house after entry under section 6 of the Act were instruments of gaming, the other part regarding the suspicion of the police officer being left out of consideration. What precisely are instruments of gaming have not been stated in the definition of the expression "instruments of gaming". It only says, the" instruments of gaming" includes any articles used or intended to be used as a subject or means of gaming. It is, hence contended on behalf of the applicants that the prosecution has to prove that any article in order to be called an "instrument of gaming" must be shown to be used or intended to be used as a subject or means of gaming and unless that is done, the article cannot be called an "instrument of gaming". What has been seized here are cards and money and according to the contention of the applicants neither the cards nor the money are" instruments of gaming". Every person possesses money for his day to day needs and they cannot be said to be instruments of gaming. Similarly, according to the applicants, the cards are often used for playing for simple recreation and innocently possessed by several persons and as such, they cannot be said to be instruments of gaming. Merely because cards have been seized in the house, it could not, therefore, be said that what was seized were instruments of gaming. It is, therefore, urged that merely from the fact of the seisure of cards and money, no presumption under section 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act could at all be raised and it had to be proved that these cards were actually used or were intended to be used for the purpose of gaming. It is, therefore, urged that merely from the fact of the seisure of cards and money, no presumption under section 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act could at all be raised and it had to be proved that these cards were actually used or were intended to be used for the purpose of gaming. It is urged that these articles are not acknowledged instruments of gaming so as to raise the presumption from the mere fact of their seizure under the provisions of section 6 of the Act and some thing more had to be established. On the contrary, it is contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader that cards are "instruments of gaming" and since they have been seized in the house entered under section 6, a presumption under section 7 of the Act can be raised that the house in which they were found is a common gaming house and the further presumption that all persons found in the house were present there for the purpose of gaming even though no gaming was actually seen. The rival contentions have, therefore, to be examined. 17. If the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicants were to be accepted, then section 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act will lose all its force because no presumption then could ever be raised unless proof was given that the things seized were actually used for the purpose of gaming or were intended to be so used as a subject or means of gaming. Such proof could be given only by examining witnesses who watched the game in, progress. These witnesses then could also be able to depose about taking of nal money, if it was taken, to prove that a person used or kept a place for profit or gain. In that case, section 5 would alone have been sufficient and there was no need to make provision for raising the presumption on the seizure, of the instruments of gaming. The definition is an inclusive definition and does not say that only particular articles are instruments of gaming and no other. In that case, section 5 would alone have been sufficient and there was no need to make provision for raising the presumption on the seizure, of the instruments of gaming. The definition is an inclusive definition and does not say that only particular articles are instruments of gaming and no other. If, therefore, the construction which is sought to be placed by the learned counsel for the applicants were to be accepted, then no article found could be characterised as an instrument of gaming and in every case the prosecution will have to show that the articles were used or intended to be used as a subject or means of gaming or that the police officer entering the house had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the thing so seized was an instrument of gaming and the Court will have to be satisfied that the police officer had such reasonable grounds. The narrow meaning, therefore, which is sought to be given to this expression "instruments of gaming" in section 7 cannot be given and it will have to be seen as to what the instruments of gaming mean. 18. Though it has not been defined in the present Act the expression is not quite new and has been defined in the Dictionaries. The word gaming has been defined at several places. The Imperial Dictionary defines the word gaming, as to use cards, dice, billiards or other instruments, according to certain rules, with a view to win money or other thing waged upon the issue of the contest. The word gaming also is defined in the Oxford Dictionary, as the action or habit of playing at games of chance for stakes; and gambling as to play games of chance for money especially for unduly high stakes; stake money on some fortuitous event. Webster defines game as to play for a stake or prize; to use cards, dice or other instruments according to certain rules etc. Tomlins Law Dictionary defines gaming as, the playing at tables, dice, cards etc. Further, there is an indication in the Public Gambling Act, No. III of 1867, as to what the instruments of gaming are. Section 6 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867, provides that when any cards, dice, gaming tables, cloths, boards or other instruments of gaming are found in any house etc. Further, there is an indication in the Public Gambling Act, No. III of 1867, as to what the instruments of gaming are. Section 6 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867, provides that when any cards, dice, gaming tables, cloths, boards or other instruments of gaming are found in any house etc. entered or searched under the provisions of the last preceding section, or about the person of any of those who are found therein, it shall be evidence, until the contrary is made to appear, that such house etc. is used as a common gaming-house, and that the persons found therein were present there for the purpose of gaming, although no play was actually seen by the Magistrate or police officer or any of his assistants. The provision of the Central Act is almost similar to section 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act with the exception that the articles which have been mentioned in section 6 of the Central Act have not been specifically mentioned in section 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. But the reading of section 6 of the Central Act shows that cards, dice, gaming tables, cloths, and boards are taken as instruments of gaming. 19. Section 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act came up for discussion in several reported cases of this Court and other Courts, but unf9rtunately in most of the cases, the instruments were alleged to be of the type of slips of paper, ank-pattis or marked coins which were used in what are commonly known as american cotton futures or sattas. Those cases are not very helpful for the purpose of deciding whether cards also are instruments of gaming per se. Emperor v. Jamnadas Hirachand1 was a case of a search instituted under section 6 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 in which an ank-satta book was found in the house of the accused and it was held in that case that the said book was an instrument of gaming and the presumption was raised that the house was a common gaming house. The judgment is a short one and the learned Judges who decided the case were content with saying that they thought that the book in that case clearly came within the definition of term "instrument of gaming" and there was no substantial difference between it and the book referred to in the earlier case, namely, Emperor v. Tribhovandas Brijbhukandas2 and, therefore, the presumption under section 7 was raised by the Court. Queen Empress v. Govind3 was a case where a coin was involved and it was held that it was not an "instrument of gaming" as it was not an implement devised or intended for that purpose. This case is also not very helpful for the present case. 20. Similarly, in Emperor v. Pyarelal Gokulprasad1, what was used as a marked coin. In this case, on receiving information the police sent a punter with marked coins for laying bets on certain figures in the shop of the accused and shortly thereafter the shop was raided and the marked coins were found and the question was whether the marked coins which were found in the shop. of the accused were instruments of gaming and it was held that though all moneys were not instruments of gaming, a particular coin or particular currency note which in fact has been used as a means of gaming can be an instrument of gaming. Of course, in this case it was shown that these marked coins were used for the purpose of laying bets and as such used for gaming. 21. Emperor v. Chimanlal Sankalchand2 lays down that where a house is searched on the authority of a warrant and instruments of gaming are found therein, the presumption under section 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, arises and dispenses with the necessity of direct evidence that gambling was being carried on for the profit of the keeper of the house. It has been further laid down therein that where under section 7 of the Act a house is presumed to be a common gaming house as defined in section 3, it means that the house is being used by its occupier for the purpose of profit or gain; but what are the instruments of gaming, however, have not been shown in this case. 22. Emperor v. Nathalal Vanmah3 was again a. case where presumption under section 7 was sought to be raised. 22. Emperor v. Nathalal Vanmah3 was again a. case where presumption under section 7 was sought to be raised. In this case, the gambling was said to be done in american futures, ank-faraks and satta transactions of a wagering character and at the search, papers, account-books and other articles were found. There were two slips of paper, note-books, diaries, loose papers and account-books which were seized. It was therein observed that the documents seized are not on the face of them instruments of gaming and then it was observed that all that the Court had to do was to see whether the documents and things found in the house raided fell within the definition of instruments of gaming, and if they did, then the presumption arose under section 7. The question again came for consideration in Emperor v. Hormazdyar Ardeshir Irani" in which the earlier case Emperor v. Nathalal Vanmali3 was also discussed; but the question which was really considered was the second part of section 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act (Act No. IV of 1887). 23. The learned Additional Government Pleader has contended that the words instruments of gaming have got a definite meaning and had been so understood at the time of the Act in question was passed. It is contended by him that at the time the Act was passed the expression instruments of gaming was no longer vague as certain articles or things were taken as "instruments of gaming." It is contended by him that before this Act was enacted, there was already a Central Act, namely, the Public Gambling Act in existence which was enacted about 20 years earlier. Section 6 of the Central Act which is similar to the provisions of section 7 of the present Act gave a clear indication as to what were the instruments of gaming. According to section 6 of the Central Act, cards, dice, gaming tables, cloths and boards were instruments of gaming. It cannot be disputed that cards, though not exclusive instruments of gaming, are often used as instruments of gaming though it is also true that cards are played also innocently by numerous persons for the purpose of recreation or for the purpose of fun or in order to while away their time. It cannot be disputed that cards, though not exclusive instruments of gaming, are often used as instruments of gaming though it is also true that cards are played also innocently by numerous persons for the purpose of recreation or for the purpose of fun or in order to while away their time. It cannot, therefore, be said that cards can never be taken as instruments of gaming and that it has got to be proved every time that the cards were used or intended to be used as a subject or means of gaming. If that was the case, then it would not have been necessary to enact the provisions of section 7 of the Act. 24. In construing the provisions of an Act, it is permissible to take past history into consideration and the object for which the provision was made, for the mischief that was sought to be avoided and such other things. There were already provisions in sections 4 and 5 of the Act wherein offences could be established by giving direct and positive evidence and if such direct or positive evidence could be given in every case, then there was no occasion for raising a presumption. In many cases, it was not possible or rather could not be possible to apprehend persons actually gaming with stakes or persons actually keeping or using a house or place for the profit or gain. It is very difficult to establish that a particular house or place is a common gaming house. Even if some persons were playing in "a house or place with stakes and some person was collecting nal money out of the stakes, no evidence would be forthcoming in these matters and even in a surprise raid, it could not be established that a particular person was keeping the house for profit or gain by taking nal money out of the stakes or that the persons playing the cards were playing with stakes. It is for this purpose, to meet this difficulty, that the provision in section 7 of the Act seems to have been made for raising a presumption where the instruments of gaming are found. The raising of presumption makes the place a common gaming house and does away with the necessity of establishing that the house is used or kept for profit or gain. The raising of presumption makes the place a common gaming house and does away with the necessity of establishing that the house is used or kept for profit or gain. That also does away with the necessity of establishing that every person present therein was gaming. 25. My attention has been drawn by the learned Additional Government Pleader to a passage at page 96 in Craies on statute Law, Sixth Edition, where in the rule of interpretation is stated. The passage reads: "In order properly to interpret any statute it is as necessary now at it was when Lord Coke reported Heydons case, to consider how the law stood when the statute to be construed was passed, what the mischief was for which the old law did not provide, and the remedy provided by the statute to cure that mischief." It is further stated in a subsequent paragraph thus: "In Young and Co. v. Mayor etc. of Leamington Lord Blackburn said that the Courts "ought in general, in construing an Act of Parliament, to assume that the Legislature knows the existing state of the law." "From this assumption springs the practice of the Courts to examine the pre-existing law in order to clear up any doubt as to the meaning of an Act. Such an examination was made by Lord Blackburn, in the case last cited, to assist him to the conclusion that section 174 of the Public Health Act, 1875, was intended to get rid of the doubts raised by judicial decisions whether certain corporations could contract otherwise than under their common seal." 26. In a recent case decided by the Supreme Court in State of W. B. v. Nripenara Nath Bagchi1 their Lordships have observed: "To find out the meaning of a law, recourse may legitimately be had to the prior state of law, the evil sought to be removed and the process by which the law was evolved." Bearing these principles in mind, the expression “instruments of gaming” has to be construed. As I said earlier, there was• already the Central Act. namely, the Public Gambling Act, 1867, which was in force at the time the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act was enacted. As I said earlier, there was• already the Central Act. namely, the Public Gambling Act, 1867, which was in force at the time the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act was enacted. If we compare the provisions of the Local Act with the Central Act, it is found that they are practically similar with minor changes here and there Section 6 of the Central Act is also a provision for enabling the presumption to he raised such as in section 7 of the Local Act and cards, dice, gaming table, cloths and board were considered to be instruments of gaming under the Central Act. The definition of the word gaming" in different Dictionaries also shows that the gaming is done with such instruments as cards, dice etc. and those were the instruments of gaming. The Legislature, therefore, in enacting section 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act must be having these definitions and the provisions of section 6 of the Central Act in mind and they must have equated the instruments of gaming with cards, dice, gaming table, cloths and boards and did not think it necessary to specifically put them in the section itself or in the definition of that expression as these things or articles could be said to be well known as instruments of gaming. The provisions of section 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act show that it was divided into two parts (1) relating to the instruments of gaming and (2) to other articles which are not instruments of gaming, but which were suspected to be instruments of gaming. Therefore, the words "instruments of gaming” used in section 7 of the Act had a certain meaning which meant certain articles and those articles could be those which have been mentioned in section 6 of the Central Act or as given in the various Dictionaries. This, therefore, should be taken as the accepted meaning of the expression "instruments of gaming". 27. Therefore, the finding of the cards in a house entered under section 6 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act was enough to raise a presumption that the house where they were found was a common gaming house. It is pertinent to note that the presumption is not raised in all cases, where there is a gaming or playing with cards. It is pertinent to note that the presumption is not raised in all cases, where there is a gaming or playing with cards. This presumption is raised only when the house is entered under section 6 of the Act and not otherwise. The entry under section 6 of the Act is made where the information is received that a particular place is being used as a common gaming house and after satisfying themselves, the entry is made by a police officer of a high rank and in the case of subordinate police officers, the Magistrate has to be satisfied and then he issues a warrant under which the entry is made into the house, room etc. This presumption can be rebutted by satisfactory evidence and no prejudice is caused to the person apprehended by raising such a presumption. Though the presumption is that a place where cards are found is a common gaming house, by showing certain things either by giving positive evidence or from the circumstances brought out in the prosecution evidence itself, it can be shown that that does not become and cannot be a common gaming house or the persons present therein could not be said to be gaming and the presumption is rebutted. 28. The finding of the cards, therefore, in a house entered under section 6 of the Act raises a presumption under section 7. In the present ease the house was entered under section 6 and cards were found. The Courts below, therefore, were right in raising a presumption that the house was a common gaming house and the persons found therein were present for the purpose of gaming. It was unnecessary further to show that they were actually gaming with stakes. 29. The question then is as to whether this presumption has been rebutted. It is true that no evidence has been given by the applicants-Accused to rebut this presumption, but it is not in every case necessary to give such evidence for rebutting the presumption. If from the evidence and from the circumstances brought out in the prosecution evidence it can be shown that there was no common gaming house and the persons therein were not present there for the purpose of gaming, the benefit must go to the accused. In the present case, the evidence regarding the taking of the nal money is not convincing. In the present case, the evidence regarding the taking of the nal money is not convincing. In fact, one of the Police Sub-Inspector and the panch witness have stated specifically that they did not see the accused No.9 taking out the nal money. The only thing therefore is that cards were found. Then in the room where the cards were found there were only four accused persons present, namely, accused Nos. 1,2,5 and 9 and the other five accused, namely, 3,4,6, 7 and 8 were said to be in the adjoining room. Their absence from the room where the cards were found can be considered as a good piece of evidence in rebuttal of the said presumption. 30. There is another circumstance which rebuts this presumption and that circumstance is that the house which was entered under section 6 of the Act did not belong to the applicant No.9 . Shaikh Umer but it belonged to his wife. Therefore, the accused No. 9 could not be said to be the keeper of the gaming house. Not only that, but even Shaikh Umer was not in possession or occupation of the said house. The said house was given on lease to the accused No.2 Dnyaneshwar Narayangir Gosavi. It is not alleged that Dnyaneshwar was keeping a common gaming house. From the fact that the accused No.9 had temporary possession or occupation over the said house where some of the accused were found, it cannot be said that the accused No.9 was keeping a common gaming house. Mere temporary occupation would not be sufficient for holding that a person is occupying or keeping a common gaming house. The evidence, therefore, which shows that the house belonging to the wife of the accused No.9 was in possession of the accused No.2 as a lessee, would disprove the fact or rather rebut the presumption that the accused No.9 was keeping a common gaming house. There is no charge against the accused No.2 that he was keeping the common gaming house. Therefore, the presumption that the house was being used as a common gaming house being rebutted, the other presumption that the persons found therein were present there for the purpose of gaming also stands rebutted. There is no charge against the accused No.2 that he was keeping the common gaming house. Therefore, the presumption that the house was being used as a common gaming house being rebutted, the other presumption that the persons found therein were present there for the purpose of gaming also stands rebutted. All the three things which I have stated above, rebut the presumption which is raised under section 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act and the applicants-accused could not be held guilty with the help of the presumption. As I said, the lower Courts have held the accused guilty on the basis of the said presumption and if this presumption is rebutted, as I hold it has been, then there is no case against the accused persons. 31. In this view, therefore, it is to be held that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of all the applicants-accused and the judgments of the Courts below will have to be set aside. 32. In the result, the revision application is allowed. The convictions and sentences of the accused-applicants are set aside and they are acquitted. The fines, if paid, will be refunded to them. Conviction set aside.