Writ Petition No. 10181 of 2012 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974 ss. 3, 4
Judgment
Petitioner is a cultural club. Earlier, on the ground that there was interference by the police, it has filed Writ Petition No.17170 of 2008 and this Court by following the order, dated 12.02.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.844 of
2007, disposed of the said Writ Petition with the direction that the respondents therein should not obstruct the petitioner club from conducting card room where the members and guests of the petitioner club were allowed to play the game of rummy with stakes/syndicate. At the same time, liberty was given to the respondents therein to proceed in accordance with law, if any other games are played in the petitioner club in violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974. Now, in this Writ Petition, it is the case of the petitioner that subsequently, on the ground that it has violated the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974, a case in Crime No.36 of 2012 was registered against it, and to that effect, it has placed on record a copy of FIR in the aforesaid crime. In that view of the matter, although it is stated in the relief sought by the petitioner that the police may raid the petitioner club in the presence of respected mediators like lawyers, doctors, auditors, judicial officers, legislative members etc., when the crime is already registered against the petitioner club, it is for the petitioner club to prove its innocence during trial. When there is an allegation against the petitioner club that the games are conducted in its premises in violation of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974, no relief can be granted in its favour as prayed for, at this stage. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. In view of disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.12890 of 2012 also stands disposed of. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 12th APRIL, 2012.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.