Don Siman vs Sinno Appu – clr volume 2 page 193

In the case between P. C. Panadnre (prosecution) and K. Sinho Appu (appellant), the court addressed whether sufficient evidence existed to establish that the appellant engaged in betting “for a stake” at a common gaming place under Ordinance No. 17 of 1889. It was held that the mere presence and participation in a game of dice, absent clear evidence of wagering, were insufficient to constitute unlawful gaming as required by the Ordinance. The principle reaffirmed is that conviction under the gaming ordinance demands explicit proof of betting for a stake. Reliance was placed on statutory requirements of criminal proof, emphasizing that a conviction cannot stand on general or vague evidence of gaming activity.

Withers J. — It was determined upon review of the evidence and the framed charge