The High Court of Gujarat, presided over by Justice P. M. Raval, has held that playing cards in a private residence does not constitute an offence under the Gujarat Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, unless there is evidence demonstrating that the premises were being run as a “common gaming house” for profit or gain. Allowing a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court quashed the FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings pending against five individuals before the Court of the 8th Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a police raid conducted on June 18, 2018. The first informant, while on duty, received a telephonic message from the police control room at 23:52 hours stating that gambling was taking place at House No. 83, 8th floor, Shaligram-2, Prahladnagar, Satellite, Ahmedabad.
After informing the Police Inspector, a special search warrant was obtained from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-7, Ahmedabad City. The police team left the police station at 00:15 hours and raided the premises along with two panchas. Upon entering the apartment, officers found five individuals seated around a table in the dining room with playing cards, colored coins, and cash in their pockets. Consequently, FIR II-C.R. No. 11191001210292 of 2021 was registered at Anandnagar Police Station for offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the Gujarat Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, leading to Criminal Case No. 17498 of 2021. The petitioners subsequently approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings.
Arguments of the Parties
Senior Advocate Tejas M. Barot, appearing with Advocate Dhaval M. Barot for the petitioners, submitted that none of the ingredients under Section 4 of the Gambling Act were attracted. It was argued that the private residence of petitioner No. 1 did not fall within the definition of a “common gaming house” as there was no evidence in the FIR or charge-sheet that the house was used for profit or gain.
The petitioners further contended that the special search warrant was issued without objective satisfaction or inquiry by the competent authority under Section 6 of the Act, given that the warrant was granted within just 23 minutes of receiving the tip.
To support their contentions, the petitioners relied upon the decision in Nimmagada Raghavalu and others (1952 SSC OnLine Mad 87), where it was observed:
“Gambling is not by itself an offence and it becomes only when it takes place in common gaming house or a public place, with the latter of which we are not concerned here. In order to make out the offence three things must occur. First all of the gambling must be in a common gaming house. ‘Common Gaming House’ has been defined as meaning any house in which cards are kept or used for the profit or gain of the person owning, occupying using or keeping such house whether by way of charge for the use of instruments of gaming or of the house. The mere fact occasionally people used to play cards in a house and perhaps for money does not necessarily make it a common gaming house…… Secondly under the definition of the common gaming house as defined in S.3 of the Madras Gaming Act the element of profit or gain is an essential ingredient and when this is negatived by the evidence in this case there is nothing to warrant a conviction of the persons found in such a house…..”
On the other hand, Additional Public Prosecutor K. M. Antani, representing the State of Gujarat, argued that whether the house was used as a common gaming house is a matter of evidence to be determined during trial. He contended that the seizure of playing cards and colored coins prima facie pointed toward gambling activities and prayed for the rejection of the petition.
Court’s Analysis
Examining the statutory definitions under the Gujarat Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, the High Court emphasized that for a premises to be classified as a “common gaming house” under Section 3 / Section 2(ii) of the Act, the element of profit or gain derived by the owner or occupier is an essential ingredient.
The Court scrutinized the FIR and charge-sheet papers, noting that there was no allegation or evidence indicating that the owner or occupier of the house charged fees or derived any profit or gain from the playing cards or coins.
Regarding the search warrant, the Court noted that the telephonic information was received at 23:52 hours and the police team departed with a warrant at 00:15 hours. The Court observed that issuing a warrant within 23 minutes demonstrated that the inquiry was perfunctory and that the competent authority failed to satisfy itself whether good grounds existed to suspect the premises was being used as a common gaming house.
Highlighting the scope of the Gambling Act, the High Court made the following key observations:
“The FIR merely states that the gambling was going on in the 8th floor of house No.83 in Shaligram-2, and this does not necessarily mean that the house was being used as a ‘common gaming house’, nor does the FIR in the vernacular language uses the word ‘Jugarkhana’ the expression of common gaming house used in the vernacular language being missing.”
“Under the circumstances, the presumption that the players were present in the house with cards and coins and cash found from their pockets alone cannot be a legitimate ground to draw an inference that petitioner No.1 is deriving from the rest of the petitioners, profit or gain from the use of his house and the cards and/or coins.”
“Thus, even while issuing warrant under Section 6 of the Act the competent authority must be careful and confine himself exactly within the limits which the Act lays down since overstepping the line would directly become an instrument of persecution, though it is left to the discretion of the competent authority, such discretion must be used with utmost care since the penal consequences under Section 6 entail.”
“Because even if the petitioners were gaming public gambling in a private apartment, an FIR being silent on the aspect of ‘common gaming house’, it cannot constitute an offence.”
Decision
Holding that the essential statutory elements of Sections 4 and 5 of the Gambling Act were not disclosed, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR II-C.R. No. 11191001210292 of 2021 registered at Anandnagar Police Station along with all consequential proceedings qua the petitioners.
Case Title: Joyalbhai Nileshbhai Shah & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case No.: R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 4465 of 2022
Bench: Justice P. M. Raval
Date: 14/07/2026
