N. Anil Kumar ORDER
A.M. Shaffique, J.
1. These review petitions are filed by third parties seeking review of judgment dated 24/1/2019 in WP(C) No. 35535/2018 by which this Court held that "playing rummy for stakes" within the club premises is an offence under the Kerala Gaming Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and it shall be open for the police to take appropriate action after complying with Section 5 of the Act. While delivering the aforesaid judgment, it has also been observed that though under Sec. 14A of the Act, the Government can exempt by way of notification in the Gazette any game from the provisions of the Act subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified in the notification, no such notification has been issued by the Government exempting the playing of rummy for stakes from its purview.
2. The review petitioners are Companies who are involved in creating and managing offline or online competitions through websites managed by them. That is they provide facilities for any person to use their website and participate in playing various games including rummy. It is inter alia contended that in so far as rummy is a game of stake and the Government had issued a notification dated 30/9/1976, exempting rummy from the provisions of the Act subject to the only condition that there would be no side-betting, the finding of the Division Bench of this Court in the impugned judgment without taking note of the notification dated 30/9/1976 issued under Sec. 14A of the Act requires to be reviewed.
3. In fact in State of A.P. v. K. Satyanarayana (MANU/SC/0081/1967 : AIR 1968 SC 825), the Apex Court held that it cannot be said that rummy is a game of chance and there is no skill involved in it. However, it was observed that if there is evidence of gambling in some other way or that the owners of the house is making a profit or gain from the game of rummy or any other game played for stakes, the offence may be brought home.
4. A perusal of the impugned judgment would indicate that this Court was not concerned with the manner in which online rummy for stakes was being played.
5. Sri. S. Sreekumar, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners would contend after reference to the judgment in Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu and another [MANU/SC/0309/1996 : (1996) 2 SCC 226] that when betting in horse race is not considered as gaming, the same analogy applies. Rummy is a game of mere skill and even if it is played for stakes, it can never be treated as a gambling and, that apart, in view of the notification u/s. 14A of the Act, the provisions of the Act will have no application.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General Sri. Ravindranath K.K. submitted that the judgment does not call for review at the instance of the petitioners as the issue regarding online gaming was not under consideration by the Division Bench. Of course, it is conceded that the notification dated 30/9/1976 was not brought to the notice of the Court. But it is argued that what is exempted from the provisions of the Act is playing rummy. But if rummy is played with stakes, as decided in K. Satyanarayana (supra) or as provided under the notification, there is side betting, it amounts to gambling and the Gaming Act clearly applies.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that in view of the notification, playing rummy is excluded from the provisions of the Act and in the impugned judgment the Division Bench has also held that the element of ski........