Andar-bahar gambling charges cannot stand absent proof that the game is one of chance.

On 26 October 2024, an Assistant Sub-Inspector alleged that he received information that persons were playing Andar-bahar for stakes at a lodge in Dharwad. Police raided the premises and seized ₹6,500 and a mobile phone; following investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and others for offences under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021 and Section 79 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.

The petitioner, arrayed as Accused No. 6, sought quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 3514/2024.

He argued, among other things, that the prosecution material did not establish that the game was one of chance or that the premises constituted a common gaming house.

1. Whether the prosecution material was sufficient to sustain proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act in relation to the alleged game of Andar-bahar.

2. Whether the proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed in light of the precedent addressing the evidentiary requirements for prosecuting persons alleged to have played Andar-bahar.

The prosecution invoked Section 79 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and Section 80 of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021.

Relying on a co-ordinate Bench decision in Criminal Petition No. 200807/2017, which referred to Eranna & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, 1977 (1) Karnataka Law Journal 274, the Court applied the principle that proceedings concerning an alleged game of Andar-bahar cannot be sustained merely on an assertion that persons were playing; the prosecution must place material showing how the game was played and establishing that it was a game of chance rather than skill.

The cited decision also held that betting, by itself, does not convert a game of skill into a game of chance, and noted the absence of a private complaint that the premises were being used as a common gaming house.

The Court considered the case covered by the co-ordinate Bench decision.

Although the prosecution alleged that the petitioner and others were playing Andar-bahar and relied on the money seized, the Court found no basis to depart from the cited precedent’s requirement that the prosecution specify how the game was played and establish that it was a game of chance rather than skill.

It therefore concluded that the proceedings could not be sustained against the petitioner.

Pending interlocutory applications were disposed of as not surviving for consideration.