Section 11: Presumptive proof of gaming.

When any thing is seized under sub-section (2) of section 10, and if the magistrate is satisfied that the police officer who seized it has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the thing so seized was an instrument of gaming, it shall be presumed that such thing was an instrument of gaming and that the person on or about whom the thing was found was present in the public street, thoroughfare or place for the purpose of gaming.

Explained:

Section 11 of the Telangana Gaming Act, 1974 deals with the presumptive proof of gaming. It operates in connection with Section 10, which empowers a police officer to arrest, search and seize money and instruments of gaming in circumstances covered by the Act.

The section provides that when anything is seized under Section 10(2), and the Magistrate is satisfied that the police officer had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the seized article was an instrument of gaming, a statutory presumption arises. The article is presumed to be an instrument of gaming, and the person from whom or around whom it was found is presumed to have been present for the purpose of gaming.

Importance of the Presumption

Section 11 therefore assists the prosecution in establishing certain foundational facts in gaming cases. However, the presumption does not dispense with the requirement of judicial scrutiny. The Magistrate must first be satisfied regarding the police officer’s reasonable grounds for suspicion.

In Janata Recreation Centre, Gullapalli v. State of A.P., the Andhra Pradesh High Court considered the constitutional validity of Section 11. The Court held that Sections 9, 10 and 11 operate together and upheld Section 11 as constitutionally valid. Importantly, the Court observed that the presumption under Section 11 is rebuttable and not absolute.

In D. Krishna Kumar v. State of A.P., the High Court considered the relationship between the Gaming Act and games of skill. The Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s interpretation that a game predominantly involving skill is distinguishable from gambling.

The Supreme Court in Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu held that a game of skill is one where success depends principally upon knowledge, training, attention, experience and skill. The Court also held that where skill substantially predominates over chance, the activity is not gambling.

Thus, Section 11 creates an important evidentiary presumption, but it must be applied together with the other provisions of the Act and the judicial principles governing gaming and games of skill.