Judgment : Per R. REGUPATHI, J. 1. Thepetitioner is the first accused among 13 accused in a case pending in C.C/No. 5666 of 2001 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, for offences punishable under Section 47 and 46 of Tamil Nadu City Police Act and under Section 4(1)(k) of the Tamilnadu Prohibition Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.5.2001 at about 23.30 hours when the complainant raided the premises of Chennai Royal Club situated at 48, Jawahar Nagar, First Cross Street, Peravallur, Chennai the members of the club were playing cards, as well as consuming liquor, resulting in the registration of the case for the aforementioned offences. On conclusion of the investigation, a final report has been filed for the said offences. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is admittedly the President of the Chennai Royal Club. As he happens to be the elected President of the club, mechanically without application of mind, he has been included as an accused in the case. It is not even the case of the prosecution that profit or gain has been made, using the place for gaming. In such circumstances, since primary element to constitute an offence under Section 45 and 46 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act is absent, the said offence is not made out. 4. In support of the above contention, the Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied on a case reported in Ramanathan and others v. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi 1986 LW Crl. 176, wherein in a previous Judgment of a case dedided by this Hon‘ble Court by His Lordship NATESAN, J, as he then was in C. R. Subramaniam and others in Re, it has been held as follows: “The cardinal constituent for an offence under Sections 45 and 46 of the city police Act is that the place used for gaming should be a common gaming house as defined in the Act. Profit or gain to the persons owning, occupying, using or keeping the place, whether by way of a charge for the instruments of gaming or of the place of otherwise howsoever is a necessary and primary element and when that is not established, there can be no offence under Sections 45 and 46 of the Act… what is prohibited is not game of cards for stakes, but playing the game in a common gaming house.” 5. Even insofar as the prohibition offence, to substantiate the said offence, there must be a direct overt act against the petitioner for allowing certain accused in his immediate presence and as such there are no such materials collected during the course of the investigation. 6. In support of his contention the learned counsel took me through Section 4(1)(k) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, which reads as follows: “ 4( 1)( k) allows any of the acts aforesaid upon premises in the immediate possession.” 7. Per contrathe learned Government Advocate submits that at the time when the premises was raided by the complainant, since the members of the club were playing cards and consuming alcohol, the case has been registered. On the strength of the statement of the co-accused since the petitioner happens to be the President of the club, he has also been taken as one of the accused in the case. Apart from the statement of the co-accused, no other materials are available to connect the petitioner with the crime. 8. I have perused the entire materials available on record. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner had been included as an accused as he happens to be the President of the club. There are no materials to substantiate that he has permitted the premises to be used by the members, as alleged in the prosecution case. Even on a perusal of the statement of the materials available on record, no where it has been stated that the petitioner has permitted such acts. In such circumstances, I do not find any material in the prosecution case to include the petitioner also as one of the accused in the case. Therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner alone is quashed. The petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently, connected MPs are closed.