Section 4: Penalty for being found gaming in a common gaming house.

Whoever is found gaming, or present for the purpose of gaming in a common gaming house shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees, or with both.

Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, any person found in any common gaming house during gaming therein shall be presumed to have been present there for the purpose of gaming.

Explained:

Section 4 of the Telangana Gaming Act, 1974 deals with the penalty for persons found gaming or present for the purpose of gaming in a common gaming house. The provision is aimed at penalising individuals who participate in gaming activities at premises falling within the statutory definition of a “common gaming house.”

What Does Section 4 Provide?

Under Section 4, a person who is found gaming, or is present for the purpose of gaming, in a common gaming house may, upon conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or a fine which may extend to ₹3,000, or both. The present provision was substituted by Act No. 29 of 2017.

The Explanation to Section 4 creates an important presumption. When a person is found in a common gaming house during gaming activities, it is presumed that the person was present there for the purpose of gaming.

Importance of “Common Gaming House”

Section 4 cannot be applied in isolation. Section 2(1) defines a “common gaming house” and, following the 2017 amendments, the definition also covers cyber space and certain forms of online gaming. Therefore, the nature of the premises or place involved is an important consideration before Section 4 can be invoked.

Important Judgments

In Choppadandi Prakash v. State of Telangana (2024), the Telangana High Court considered proceedings under Sections 3 and 4. The Court observed that unless the place involved is established as a “common gaming house” under the Act, Section 4 cannot be attracted. The proceedings against the petitioners were consequently quashed.

Similarly, in Alique Hirani v. State of Telangana (2025), the Telangana High Court held that where the premises could not be treated as a common gaming house within the meaning of Section 2(1), continuation of proceedings under Sections 3 and 4 was not sustainable.

In Yogesh Agarwal v. State of Telangana (2025), involving allegations of online cricket betting, the Court again emphasised the requirement of establishing that the place involved falls within the statutory concept of a common gaming house before Section 4 can be applied. The proceedings were quashed.

Conclusion

Section 4 provides a specific punishment for persons found gaming or present for gaming in a common gaming house. However, the prosecution must satisfy the statutory requirements relating to the character of the premises. The Telangana High Court judgments demonstrate that merely alleging gaming activity is not necessarily sufficient; the legal ingredients of a common gaming house must also be established.