1. Petitioner 1 has been convicted under Sections 6 and 7, Towns Nuisance Act, Madras Act 3 of 1889, of keeping a common gaming house and the remaining petitioners under Section 7 of gaming therein. The expression 'common gaming house' has not been defined in the Act; and although a definition of the term occurs in Section 3, City Police Act, I think that following two decisions of this Court one unreported and the other reported as Chinniah, In re A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 723 the meaning to be attached is substantially that contained in 15 Hals. 584, namely a place of public resort where a number of persons are invited to congregate for the purpose of gaming. As regards the evidence of the prosecution witness P.W. 3, upon whose information the Sub-Inspector took action, states with reference to the place in question that he had seen the accused and others also always gaming with cards, betting money and gambling, that accused 1 was collecting Rangu Kasu (which is some kind of levy) for all such plays, that gaming went on there clay and night and that whenever he passed by when going to work he saw the accused 1 and others gambling. Evidence to the same effect was given by P.W. 6, and the Sub-Inspector himself (P.W. 1) stated that he had information that accused 1 was keeping a common gaming house and that gambling was going on there. He made a raid with the result that all the accused were found inside the compound gambling with cards and money. As soon as they saw him they attempted to run away. I do not think that any other inference is possible on this evidence than that which has been drawn by the lower Courts, namely that accused 1 was keeping the gaming house and the remaining accused were actually caught when gambling there. In these circumstances I can find no reason to interfere with the conviction. I dismiss the petition.