Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2467 (RAJ)

Sunil Goyal v. State of Rajasthan

2005-09-15

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have challenged the continuation of proceedings against them pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar for offence under section 3/4 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949 (henceforth to be referred as the Ordinance for short). 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.5.2002 the SHO, Police 5 Station, Jawahar agar, Sri Ganganagar had filed a complaint against the present petitioners for offence under Section 3/4 of the Ordinance. According to the said complaint, on 12.5.2002 a police party had raided Dream World Video Games, situated at 159, Sukhadia Shopping Centre at Sri Ganganagar. The present petitioners are the employees of the said Video Game Parlour. Alongwith the present petitioners, twelve other persons, who were playing video games at the Parlour, were also arrested. While the twelve players had pleaded guilty and were sentenced to fine, the present petitioners did not plead guilty. They were enlarged on regular bail. However, as they are aggrieved by the continuation of criminal proceedings against them, they have challenged the same before us. 3. Mr. Sandeep Shah, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, has to vehemently argued that the games played at the Parlour involving a machine and the skill of the player is not included under the Ordinance. According to him, in order to invoke the penal sections under the Ordinance, the element of chance is sine qua non for the offence. But, a video game is a game of skill, therefore the operation of video game is not covered under the Ordinance. In order to substantiate his arguments, he has relied upon the case of Tulsi Ram v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 284 of 2000 decided on 24.1.2002 by his Hon'ble Court. Hence, according to him, the continuation of the criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of the law and of the Courts. Thus, the criminal proceedings should be quashed immediately. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has argued that when the raid was carried out, the players were found to have certain tokens, which they were using to operate the machines. Each of the players also had money with them. Moreover, the video game is not just a game of skill, but also involves an element of chance. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has argued that when the raid was carried out, the players were found to have certain tokens, which they were using to operate the machines. Each of the players also had money with them. Moreover, the video game is not just a game of skill, but also involves an element of chance. Therefore, the operation of such a video game is included within the four corners of the Ordinance. Hence, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, the criminal proceedings should be permitted to continue. 5. We have not only examined the arguments made by the Counsels for the parties, but have also considered the relevant law and case law. 6. Section 2(2) of the Ordinance defines "gaming" as follows: "In this ordinance, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context: (1) xxx (2) "gaming" includes wagering or betting but does not include a lottery: Explanation: Any transaction by which a person in any capacity whatever employs another in any capacity whatever or engages for another in any capacity whatever to wager or bet with another person shall be deemed to be "gaming". Section 12 of the Ordinance reads as under: "12. Ordinance not to apply to certain games. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be, held to any game of mere skill, as distinguished from a game of chance or a game of chance and skill combined, unless it is carried on in a common gaming house." 7. A bare perusal of these provisions would clearly reveal that the element of wagering/betting is an essential ingredient of the offence. Section 12 of the Ordinance while carving out an exception clearly states that nothing in this Ordinance shall be held to apply to any game of mere skill, as distinguished from a game of chance or a game of chance and skill combined, unless it is carried on in a common gaming house. 8. Indeed, there is always an element of chance in any game, as in life. However many games depend on the execution of the skill of the player. Thus, games like Horse-racing which depend on the skill of the jockey and the strength of the horse, have been held not to be a game of chance. 8. Indeed, there is always an element of chance in any game, as in life. However many games depend on the execution of the skill of the player. Thus, games like Horse-racing which depend on the skill of the jockey and the strength of the horse, have been held not to be a game of chance. Similarly, in the present case, the customer purchases a token from the counter after making certain payment, inserts the token into the video machine thereby starting the said machine, the video machine projects an obstacle course through which he should navigate using his skill both mental and physical. While, he navigates through the obstacle course, his skills are rated by the machine and at the end of the game, the score is displayed by to the machine. Thus, in such a game, there is neither an element of betting nor an element of wagering. It is the individual against machine while the game is being played. Since, it is a game of skill, therefore, according to Section 12, the provisions of the Ordinance cannot be applied on those who operate the game in Gaming House or on those who run the video parlours. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the persons of the gaming house would amount to abuse of the process of the law and of the Courts. 9. In the case of Tulsiram v. State of Rajasthan (supra), similar facts were involved. The case dealt with a video parlour where the players and the owner were arrested by the police for the offence under Section 3/4 of the Ordinance After an elaborate discussion ranging from the definition of the word 'gaming" given in the law dictionaries to the relevant case law and to the relevant provisions of law, the Hon'ble High Court concluded that the video games are nothing, but games of skill played by the players for entertainment. Therefore, the said games and parlour houses are not covered by the Ordinance. Thus, the Hon'ble Court was pleased to quash the criminal proceedings which was pending before the trial Court. 10. Since, the allegations made against the petitioners prima facie do not disclose the commission of any offence, therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the law and of the Courts. Thus, the Hon'ble Court was pleased to quash the criminal proceedings which was pending before the trial Court. 10. Since, the allegations made against the petitioners prima facie do not disclose the commission of any offence, therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the law and of the Courts. Thus, we allow this petition and quash the criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in the case of State v. Sunil Goyal & Ors. , for offence under Section 3/4 of the Ordinance.Proceedings Quashed. *******