Public Gambling act, 1867

& Rules of Evidence

-T.AKASH KUMAR
19LL068
SEMESTER V
Section 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 , 13 of Public gambling act.
Section 104, 49, 94, 114 of Indian evidence act.
• Public gambling act was enacted in 1867. Before 1867,
only section 290 of Indian penal code 1860 could prohibit
gambling activities in the country. It says punishment for
public nuisances in cases not otherwise provided for.
The initial purpose of this Act was to repress public
gambling in large towns situated in the territories
respectively under their governments, without giving rise
to oppression and other malpractices on the part of the
police.
Under public gambling act, games of chances were
prohibited where as only game of skill were allowed to
continue. .
.

 Section 6 of Public gambling act- when any instruments of gaming are found
in any house or a particular place, or any person is found in that place, it
shall be considered as an evidence, until contrary is made that the particular
place is used for gambling.
 Here, under section 104 of the Indian evidence act(Burden of proving fact to
be proved to make evidence admissible), it is necessary for the prosecution to
prove that he owned the house or was the occupier of it and that the
instruments of gambling were kept or used for the profit or gain of that
person.
 Mostly in cases related to public gambling, decoy witnesses are used as a trap
to gather evidence and they are produced before court but they are not
considered as offenders.
 Under section 133 of Indian evidence act,(accomplice- An accomplice shall be
a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal
merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an
accomplice.) the decoy witness can be produced as a witness to provide
evidence.
.

 Under section 13, it is said that a “police-officer may apprehend without

warrant any person found playing for money or other valuable thing with
cards, dice, counters or other instruments of gaming, used in playing any
game not being a game of mere skill in any public street, place or
thoroughfare situated within the limits”
 In case of Kanubhai Prabhudas and Anr. vs The State of Gujarat, p.s.i with
help of panch witness has submitted evidence u/s 49 of evidence act,(– When
the Court has to form an opinion as to- the meaning of words or terms used in
particular districts or by particular classes of people, the opinions of persons
having special means of knowledge thereon are, relevant facts.) The P.S.I.
has stated in cross-examination that this is a common mode of giving a bet
amongst gamblers. For the purpose of Section 49 of the Evidence Act
gamblers would be a class of people it is true that the P.S.I. has not
mentioned that he has special means of knowledge or how he acquired
special means of knowledge.
• Motiram Ganga vs. The state of Maharasthra,
(1966) 68 Bom LR 709
• State of Andhra Pradesh vs. K. Satyanarayana &
Others, [1968] 2 SCR 387
• Arambam Manikchand Singh And Ors. vs The
Manipur Administration, 1962 CRILJ 615
• Kishan Chander v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
[1964] 1 SCR 765