034-NLR-NLR-V-23-PERERA-v.-SINGHO-et-al.pdf
1931.
( 154 )
Present: De Sampayo J.PERERA v: SINGHO et aL
098-1,102—P. C, Kahtiara, 6,184.
Unlawful gaming—Gambling on an open ground near the cooly line onan estate—Public roads passing through the estate—Public place.The accused, were found gambling on an open ground in frontof a cooly line on an estate.
Held, that the fact that public roads passed through the estatedid not make the place a public place.
^jpHE facts appear from the judgment.
Zoysa, for appellants.
December 13,1921. De Sampayo J.—.
This is a prosecution under the Gaming Ordinance. Some eightpersons, seven of whom are Sinhalese, were charged with havingcarried on unlawful gaming on Arapolakanda estate. The Tamilaccused pleaded guilty. If he had not, he would have been ableto urge the same point which the appellants in this case urge indefence. The point is whether they were gambling in a publicplace. The idea of the place being kept as a gaming place isnegatived, nor did the police enter the premises with a warrant,ho the prosecution had to depend on proof that the place was oneto which the public had access whether of right or not. Now, thisArapolakanda estate would appear to be a very extensive rubberestate, and through it are roads along which the public may pass,but the particular place in which the gaming is said to have takenplace is an open ground in front of a cooly line. Now, as theestate had public roads, the Magistrate appears to think that thewhole estate was a place to which the public bad access. I thinkthis is going too far. It is not the whole estate we have to takeinto account, but a particular spot at which the gaming took place,and I should say that in the neighbourhood of the cooly lines thepublic have no right of access, nor can they be said to have accessthough without any right to it. Reference may be made on thesubject as to how fai a part of an estate may be considered a publicplace within the meaning of the Gaming Ordinance to Burmester v*Muttusanvy.1 Although the place there in question was the linesthemselves, yet the reasoning which I ventured to maintain in thatcase is applicable to the compound or open bit of place in front ofa set of cooly lines. I think, therefore, the prosecution failed toprove an essential element in the charge.
The conviction of the appellants are set aside.
iSet aside.
M 19l6)l9N.L.B.m.