Judgment :- This is a petition under S. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. 1163 of 1985 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Thirumangalam, Madurai Dt. 2. The Inspector of Police, Kallupatti filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners for playing cards in door No. 6/84 Chatram Main Road, Kallikudi at about 9-30 p.m. on 18-8-1985 for the offences under sections 8 and 9 of the Gaming Act. On receipt of process, the petitioners have come forward to file this present petition praying to quash the proceedings in the court below. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in order to fasten or mulct with criminal liability upon the petitioner for the offences under sections 8 and 9 of the Gaming Act, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the place where the petitioner and others were found playing cards on the relevant date and time in question is a gaming house run by some one or such place was made use of for gaming activities. Learned counsel would further point out that the materials available on record in the form of the first information report and charge-sheet would not at all disclose that door No. 6/84 Chatram Main Road, Kallikudi, is a common gaming house or the same was run by some one for gaming activities. In the absence of proof forthcoming on these aspects of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the prosecution launched against the petitioner in the court below has to be necessarily quashed as not maintainable. In support of the contention, learned counsel also would place reliance on the decision in Sundaram v. State 1984 Mad LJ Cri 114 : 1984 CrLJ 62), wherein the learned Judge of this court has held as follows - "Before ever a person can be convicted under S. 8 or under S. 9 of the Gaming Act, there must be proof that a common gaming house was being run by some one and that such place was being made use for gaming activities. In the instant case, there is absolutely no mention in the report about anybody running a common gaming house. In the instant case, there is absolutely no mention in the report about anybody running a common gaming house. There is absolutely no mention about the 10th petitioner permitting the use of the premises for gaming activities with a view to derive profit or gain for himselfOn this one ground alone, the proceedings pending before the Court below deserves to be quashed. The Sub-Inspector of Police without obtaining a search warrant from the Magistrate has gone to raid the premises after sending advance intimation to the Magistrate." * I am in respectful agreement with the above decision. 4. On a perusal of the records available, I am perfectly satisfied that there is no reference either in the first information report or in the charge-sheet that door No. 6/94 Chatram Main Road Kallikudi, was described as a common gaming house. In such circumstances I affix my seal of approval to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the materials available on record do not disclose the offences under Ss. 8 and 9 of the Gaming Act as against the petitioners. In this view of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed by quashing the proceedings of the Court below as against the petitioners. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed.