Chamier, J.:— The applicant has been convicted under section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867, of having played a game for money in a public place. He was caught in the act of conducting what is known as the ring game. It is fully described in the judgement of the Sessions Judge and it seems to me the same game as that which is described by Mittra and Fletcher, JJ., in the case of Hari Singh v. King-Emperor, decided on August 19th, 1907. That case was decided under the Bengal Gambling Act, II of 1877, in section 10 of which as in section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, III of 1867, the expression “game of mere skill” is used. The learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court said:— “It seems to us that, although there is an element of chance in throwing a ring over the pin, the chief element of the game is one of skill.” I am somewhat disposed to think that the element of chance in this case is so strong as to make it impossible to hold that the game is a mere game of skill. At the same time there is no doubt that a considerable amount of skill might be attained at the game. Having regard to what seems to have taken place in past with reference to this case, I am inclined to think that there ought not to have been an order for the prosecution of the applicant. In this case, however, the question must be decided whether the game was a mere game of skill or not. In view of the decision of the Calcutta High Court I refer this case to a bench of two Judges.
The case coming on before a Division Bench, the following judgement was delivered:—
Knox and Griffin, JJ.:— We have carefully considered the description given of the game which both the courts below held to be not a game of mere skill. The learned counsel for the applicant who asks us to interfere with the view taken by these courts, has referred us to a Calcutta ruling in Criminal Revision No. 771 of 1907, Hari Singh v. King Emperor. There is a material difference between the words used in section 10 of the Bengal Public Gambling Act and section 12 of Act No. III of 1867, which is the Act which governs the case now before us. We are by no means sure that the game which the Calcutta High Court Judges had under consideration was precisely the same as is described by the learned Sessions Judge of Cawnpore. We are, of course, only concerned with the game described by the latter. From the description so given we find ourselves unable to interfere. We hold that the game described by the learned Sessions Judge of Cawnpore is not a game of mere skill. The application is dismissed.
Application dismissed.