1. These two cases were heard together. One is an appeal and the other is a revision case. In the appeal case, two men, Section Rule Varma and Major Cunington, former the proprietor and latter the manager of a Carnival known as the Happy World, have been convicted under Section 44, Calcutta Police Act, and sentenced-Varma to a fine of Rs. 250 and Cunington to a fine of Rs. 75 by a Presidency Magistrate. In the revision case, two men Section M. Sen and Captain Tatum, the former the proprietor and the latter the manager of another Carnival known as the Victoria Carnival have been convicted by the same Magistrate under the same section and sentenced Section M. Sen to a fine of Rs. 75 and Tatum to a fine of Rs. 40. The two cases, it would appear, were with the consent of parties in a way heard together and the judgment was given to cover both the cases. This was done apparently because the charges were the same, the evidence practically the same in the two cases; the main points involved in both were the same and there were the same arguments in both the cases. Before me also, the two cases were heard together and this judgment will govern both the cases.
2. What happened in the cases was this: on 16th January last, the police raided the two Carnivals and found going on in them what is known as the ' dart-game'. The modus operandi of the game was this: there was a fixed board with the numbers 1, 2, 3 ... 10 displayed on it in several rows and there was a table also with the numbers 1-10 marked on it. Tickets, which would be purchased at the Victoria Carnival for Re. 1 each and at the Happy World at eight and four annas each, were placed on the table to cover some numbers on it by the thrower, the man who would throw the darts, as also by others who were holders of tickets. The thrower who also was one of the ticket-holders was given 5 darts with which to try to hit a number on the board. If any of the numbers covered on the table was hit, the holder of the ticket by which the number had been covered was to receive double the value of the ticket. Each holder of a ticket was entitled to get as many as 5 darts with which to try to hit a number on the board, but when more than one number was covered on the table, the total number of darts supplied was only 5 and could not be more than 5. When the police raid took place there were at the Happy World Carnival one A. B. Banerjee as the thrower and one Sachindra Chakrabarty as the other man who had covered with their tickets Nos. 8 and 3 respectively on the table and at the Victoria Carnival one Ratan Chand as the thrower and one Loke Chand Mohan as the other man who had covered with their tickets Nos. 2 and '3 respectively on the table. So far as Sachindra Chakrabarty at the Happy World and Loke Chand Mohan at the Victoria Carnival were concerned, they took no part in the throwing of the darts and their only chance lay in the thrower hitting their number, namely on the board 3, they themselves having no hand whatever either in the throwing or hitting. There was no question of skill of any kind on their part so far as they, were concerned.
3. Now, if a person stakes money or something valuable on some future contingency or the happening of a certain event ha is said to 'bet'. In the present case, Sachindra and Loke Chand by purchasing their tickets staked their money on the happening of a certain event, viz., the thrower hitting not his own number but their number, viz., 3, on the board. This was clearly 'betting' and Mr. Sen with his usual fairness and frankness admitted that it would be so. But his contention was that these men were acting in concert with the thrower, that Sachindra and Banerjae at the Happy World and Ratan Chand and Loke Chand at the Victoria Carnival bad pooled their resources together and that as the dart-game has in the case of Saligram Khettry v. Emperor : AIR1933Cal8 been held to be a game of skill, the action of Sachindra and Loke Chand amounted to no offence and that being so, there was no betting going on at the time and the convictions under Section 44, Calcutta Police Act, were wrong. I could understand the force of this argument if there were sufficient materials on the record of the cases to show that the two men Sachindra and Loke Chand were acting in concert with the throwers and had pooled their resources together having come to an arrangement that all the profits and losses would be shared by them with the throwers. But beyond the statement of the accused themselves and the fact in the Victoria Carnival case that Ratan Chand and Loke Chand Mohan were residents of the same place there was nothing on the record to indicate any such arrangement. In the absence of sufficient materials on the record from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that Sachindra Chakrabarty and A. B. Banerjee in the Happy World case and Ratan Chand and Loke Chand Mohan in the case of the Victoria Carnival had pooled their resources together and had coma to an arrangement that the profits and losses were to be shared by them, there was no escape from the mischief of the offence of betting. I would therefore hold that there was betting and that being so, the appellants in the Happy World case and the petitioners in the Victoria Carnival case were rightly convicted under Section 44, Calcutta Police Act. The appeal is dismissed and the rule is discharged.