HC's view that rummy for stakes is illegal doesn't survive: SC
The Supreme Court has held that Madras High Court's view that playing card-game Rummy for stakes was illegal, does not survive as those accused in a case in Chennai have been acquitted by a court there.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that Madras High Court's view that playing card-game Rummy for stakes was illegal, does not survive as those accused in a case in Chennai have been acquitted by a court there.
Chennai-based Mahalakshmi Cultural Association (MCA) had sought permission from the apex court to take back its plea from the High Court stating that it has been acquitted in a prosecution launched under the Police Act.
Taking note of the submission, the bench of justices Madan B Lokur and S A Bobde said, "Since the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, the observations made by the High Court in the writ petition or in the writ appeal filed by the State do not survive. The special leave petition is dismissed as infructuous."
The bench said that the counsel for the petitioner has confirmed that "the trial court passed an order on October 11, 2014, acquitting the petitioner (MCA) in the prosecution launched by the respondents." The prosecution had alleged that the members of the MCA were indulging in betting money for profit.
The apex court also allowed withdrawal of a writ petition pending in the High Court in which it was observed that organising and playing the game of Rummy for stakes was illegal under the Chennai City Police Act, 1888.
The Madras High Court had on March 22, 2012 said that organising and playing the game of Rummy for stakes is illegal under the Chennai City Police Act 1888.
Earlier on August 13, the bench had kept rummy websites out of its scrutiny saying "since there is no discussion at all in regard to online rummy in the impugned judgment and order, it is not necessary for us to entertain these petitions, the issue being res integra."
"We make it clear that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras has not dealt with online rummy and, therefore, any observations made in the impugned judgment and order may not necessarily relate to online rummy," the bench has said.