1. The first petitioner has bean convicted under Sections 6 and 7 of the Towns' Nuisances Act, Madras Act III 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 of the City Police Act, I think that following the two decisions of this Court fane unreported and other reported as In Re: Chinniah 77 Ind. Cas. 303 : 47 M. 426 : 19 L.W. 219 : 46 M.L.J. 309 : (1924) M.W.N. 237 : 34 M.L.T. 195 : 25 Cri.L.J. 367 : A.I.R. 1924 M. 729] the meaning to be attached is substantially that contained in 15 Halsbury 584, namely, a place of public resort where a number of persons are invited to congregate for the purpose of gamiag. As regards the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, P. W. No 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 the 1st accused was collecting ranga kasu (which is some kind of levy) for all such plays that gaming went on there day and night and that whenever he passed by when going to work he saw the 1st accused and others gambling. Evidence to the same effect was given by P. W. No. 6; and the Sub-Inspector himself (P. W. No. 1) stated that he had information that the 1st accused 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 the 1st accused was keeping the gaminghouse 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.