1) file petition in HC for quashing of FIR as raid conducted on residential house which is not common gaming room
2)
It is to be noted that in order to fasten the criminal liability under Section 3 and 4 of the A.P. Gaming Act, the de-facto complainant has to establish that whoever is found gaming or present for the purpose of gaming in a common gaming house shall be punished. Section 3 of the A.P. Gaming Act runs as under:
Explanation:- For the purpose of clause(ii), any premise or place or cyber space belonging to or occupied by a club, society, company or other associations of persons, whether incorporated or not, which is used or kept for the purpose of gaming shall be deemed to be a common gaming house notwithstanding that there is no profit or gain for the club, society, company or other associations of persons on account thereof."
3) . Therefore, in order to fasten the liability under Section 3 of the A.P.Gaming Act, the prosecution is expected to prove that the place, where the raid was done is a common gaming house. Admittedly, the place, where the offence was committed is a residential house
4) It is not the case of the prosecution that you had permitted other accused to use the premises by collecting money, interest rent or any other kind by using the said premises as gaming centre. Therefore, when there is no allegation and material that accused No.1 has permitted other accused to use the house on payment of money, it cannot be stated that the place of residence of accused No.1 is a common gaming house. On going through Section 3 of the A.P. Gaming Act, it is clear that whoever, opens, operates or uses any common gaming house can be punished for a period of two years. Therefore, in order to fasten the criminal liability, the prosecution is expected to prove that the accused has used common gaming house