B. C. PATEL, J. ( 1 ) NATIONAL Amateur Gymkhana and one Nathubhai Ramsinh filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia praying that by issuing appropriate writ order or direction the action initiated by the respondents particularly by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 of raiding the premises of the petitioner No. 1-Club under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 12-5-1993 be quashed and set aside and that the respondents be restrained from taking any action pursuant to the raid carried out on 12-5-1993. ( 2 ) IT appears that petitioner No. 1 earlier preferred Special Civil Application No. 8178 of 1991 contending that in the Club members are playing the game of rummy which is not prohibited; therefore the Police officers should be restrained from raiding the premises of the petitioners under the provisions of the Act where only the game of rummy is being played and the Court has issued notice and granted ad interim relief to that effect. Shri Patel learned Advocate states that the matter is pending even today. ( 3 ) THIS petition is not maintainable as the Police officers on receipt of information with a warrant searched the premises found the persons playing the game of three-cards with money and that charge was collected per game. The Police Officer commenced the investigation and collected the evidence. In case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Suppl (1) S. C. C. page 335 it is considered as to when powers under Section 482 of Cri. Pro. Code. or the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised. The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. Pro. Code. or the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised. The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. PC can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice though it may not be possible to lay down any precise clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised : (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials if any accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-congnizable offence no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is suffcient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. The Apex Court further held that :the investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code and the courts are not justified in obliterating the track of investigation when the investigating agencies are well within their legal bounds. A noticeable feature of the scheme under Chapter XIV of the Code is that a Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of the police investigation but he is not authorised to interfere with the actual investigation or to direct the police how that investigation is to be conducted. Hence this is a fit case for exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or not is to be considered keeping these principles in mind. ( 4 ) IT is contended by Shri Patel learned Advocate that on the day of incident namely 12 the members of the Club were playing the game of rummy and the officers raided the premises and prepared a false panchnama making an allegation that the members were playing the game of three-cards. ( 4 ) IT is contended by Shri Patel learned Advocate that on the day of incident namely 12 the members of the Club were playing the game of rummy and the officers raided the premises and prepared a false panchnama making an allegation that the members were playing the game of three-cards. This is done according to the learned Advocate obviously by the Police officers with a view to see that no contempt-of-court proceedings are initiated against the police officer In short it is submitted that the contention be accepted in spite of fact that officers empowered under the provisions contained in the Act searched the premises with a warrant ( 5 ) THE police officer was empowered to raid the premises known as National Amateur Gymkhana situated in Navagam Ghed behind T. R. Hospital Jamnagar as the District Superintendent of Police Jamnagar had reason to suspect that the said premises was used as a common gaming house. Having satisfied himself after an inquiry that there were good grounds for such a suspicion granted permission under the provisions of the Act. It is required to be noted that when the premises is searched with a warrant after credible information the persons present in the premises are presumed to be there for the purpose of gambling even though no play may be actually witnessed by the raiding party as presumption is to be raised. The police officer of the cadre of A. S. P. at Jamnagar authorised under the provisions of the Act raided the premises on 12 Shri Champaneri learned A. G. P. has submitted that on account of information received Rameshkumar Maganlal Dave and Jayantilal Damjibhai both Deputy Mamlatdars were requested to act as panchas. Thus the officers of the State Government were also taken as panchas. They were explained the posit ion and thereafter the laid was carried out after preparing the preliminary panchnama at about 6-00 p. m. on 12-5-1993. According to Shri Champaneri learned AGP the panchnama reveals that the accused persons mentioned in the panchnama were playing three-cards game and each of the accused referred to in the panchnama was having in his possession with him three-cards. Therefore the question before the Court is whether the persons who were found playing cards were playing the game of rummy or the game of three-cards i. e. game of chance. Therefore the question before the Court is whether the persons who were found playing cards were playing the game of rummy or the game of three-cards i. e. game of chance. In the petition these petitioners have nowhere explained as to how they were playing the game of rummy how many cards were found with each person who was arrested how many cards were laying on the table and in what manner the persons were playing the game and whether on tables in different rooms or on different tables in the same room. Under the provisions of the Act it is for the learned Magistrate to decide the matter after taking cognizance of an offence on the evidence adduced by the prosecution as to whether the game being played was three-cards or rummy. ( 6 ) SHRI Patel submitted that this is a fit case wherein a direction should be issued to the learned Magistrate to hold an inquiry When the learned Magistrate is required under the provisions of law to decide the matter in accordance with the evidence which may be adduced by the prosecution there is no question for directing the learned Magistrate to hold an inquiry If on evidence it is found that the accused persons were playing the game which amounts to gaming under the act then obviously the case placed before this Court is false. In the instant case there are disputed questions about the nature of game being played apart from the fact that the petitioners have not at all explained the manner in which the game was being played. It would be for the learned Magistrate to decide the matter on evidence as to whether the game of rummy was being played of the game of three-cards as averred by the officer of the respondents in his affidavit-in-reply In the case of State of U. P. v. K. Satyanarayanan reported in A. I. R. It S. C. 825 the trial court opined that the offence was proved because of presumption. The learned Single Judge accepting reference did not express any opinion upon the question whether the game of rummy can be described as a game of skill but acquitted the accused on the ground that the Club was not making profit but was only charging something as service charge. The learned Single Judge accepting reference did not express any opinion upon the question whether the game of rummy can be described as a game of skill but acquitted the accused on the ground that the Club was not making profit but was only charging something as service charge. ( 7 ) THE Apex Court so far as service charge and levy of the charge is concerned in para 10 held as under :10 This leaves over for consideration only the sitting fee as it is called In this connection the account books of the club have been produced before us and they show that a fee of 50 paise is charged per person playing in the card room This to our opinion is not such a heavy charge in a Members Club as to be described as an attempt to make a profit or gain for the club of course if it had been proved that 5 points per game were charged that might have been considered as an illegal charge sufficient to bring the club within the definition. As we have already pointed the levy of that charge has not been proved. The other charges which the club made do not establish that this v. as a common gambling house within the definition. Thus if it had been proved that per game charge is taken then it could have been considered as an illegal charge to attract the definition common gaming house. Thus there was no evidence by which it can be said to be a common gaming house So far as game of rummy is concerned in para 12 the Court has observed : Of course if there is evidence of gambling in some other way or that the owner of the house or the club is making a profit or gain from the game of Rummy or any other game played for stakes the offence may be brought home. Thus there was no sufficient evidence in that case. However it cannot be said that whenever game of rummy is being played in common gaming house is no offence. ( 8 ) ON behalf of the State it has been specifically averred in the affidavit-in-reply as under :i say that as a matter of fact when any game of cards is being played that club charges fixed amount for the game which is popularly known as `nala. ( 8 ) ON behalf of the State it has been specifically averred in the affidavit-in-reply as under :i say that as a matter of fact when any game of cards is being played that club charges fixed amount for the game which is popularly known as `nala. Thus per game charge is collected and if this is proved it may be sufficient to bring the club within the definition of common gaming house. It is also specifically averred as under :i say that in the past also this club had been raided number of times and it is being found that instead of game rummy game of teenpatti (three-cards) is being played in the premises of the petitioner-club. I say that at the time of raid 45 persons were found playing game of teenpatti and I have also recovered all the instruments to facilitate the gambling i. e. furniture and other articles. THUS reading the reply it becomes clear that according to the officer raiding the Club the game of three-cards was being played and not the game of rummy as averred in the petition. This court cannot interfere when investigation reveals that an offence is committed more particularly when the officers empowered under the provisions of the act raided the premises with a warrant issued by a competent officer after satisfaction for raiding the premises Shri Patel learned Advocate stales that three Special Civil Applications have been filed in this Court; in one of them (being Special Civil Application No. 10279 this Court has taken the view that the Police authorities should not interfere when the members are playing the game of rummy with an observation that if any objectionable game is being played it would be open for the Police to take action in accordance with law. The petition was accordingly allowed. However no such order is placed on record. But I lake it to be true. When I questioned Shri Patel learned Advocate that in that case whether the game of rummy or the game or three-cards was being played he could not answer. The petition was accordingly allowed. However no such order is placed on record. But I lake it to be true. When I questioned Shri Patel learned Advocate that in that case whether the game of rummy or the game or three-cards was being played he could not answer. Even the Apex court has not held that game of rummy if played where per game charge is collected illegally is not an offence and the Court has observed that if there is evidence of gambling in some other way or that the owner of the house or club is making a profit or gain from the game of rummy or any other game played for stakes the offence may be brought home. In the instant case it is placed on record through an affidavit that the members of the petitioner-Club were playing the game of three-cards and per game charge was collected. Therefore the view taken above would not mean that the action taken by the Police Officer in the instant case on 12-5-1993 is illegal or contarary to law. Police Officer had information in advance and after satisfying the proper authority has issued a warrant and in the presence of two panchas who are the Govt. Officers the members of the Club were found playing game of three-cards. It is also required to be noted that petitioners have not given description which would disclose that the particular game was being played which is permissible. In the instant case the petitioners have not explained as to how the stakes came into existence how the moneys could be earned or lost as a result of such a game. It is for the prosecution to prove before the court as to how the game was being played. In the instant case from the manner in which the game was being played i. e. three-cards and that the manner in which the moneys which were seized were lying there it would be too premature to say that the game of rummy was being played and not three-cards. It would be for the appropriate court to decide the issue on evidence on record. Hence no interference is called for. The petition is disposed of as rejected. Notice is discharged. ( 9 ) XXX xxx xxx .