IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR Crl.P.No.457/2019 BETWEEN:
1. RANGANATHA S/O SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS NO.25, SRI NEELADRI 1ST MAIN ROAD HAVANOOR, BANGALORE-560072.
2. BABU RAO S/O LATE BYRIJI RAO AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.50, 5TH TEMPLE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560003.
3. BALAKRISHNA RAO S/O C.S. RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.272, KOPAM CIRCLE WHITEFIELD BANGALORE-560 066.
4. SHIVARAJA S/O LATE SRIKANTAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.1113, 11TH CROSS VYALIKAVAL BANGALORE-560003.
5. ABHINAVA S/O VIJAYA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.185, 1ST MAIN ROAD LPO, SADASHIVANAGAR BANGALORE-560 003.
6. AZMAL PASHA S/O ABDHUL KHALEEL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.2, 2ND CROSS LN COLONY, YESHWANTHAPURA BANGALORE-560022.
7. DEVAIAH S/O LATE PONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.6, HARIS ROAD BENSON TOWN BANGALORE-560 003.
8. RAMESH V K S/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.38, 4TH CROSS SWIMMING POOL EXTENSION MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560003.
9. JANADHARANA S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.490/A, 12TH CROSS VYALIKAVAL BANGALORE-560 003.
10. SUDHARSHANA S/O VENKATESHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.22, 12TH CROSS SWIMMING POOL EXTENSION MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560 003.
11. SATHISH GOWDA S/O GANGADHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.87, 3RD A CROSS ROAD, 26TH MAIN, NANDININ LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 096.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAGHUNANDAN G, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY VYALIKAVAL POLICE STATION BANGALORE, BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.40562/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (TRAFFIC COURT I), MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Sri Raghunandan G., learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. Petitioners who have been arraigned as accused Nos.3,4,5,7,9 to 15 in C.C.No.40562/2015 have sought for quashing of the proceedings which has been registered against them for the offence punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short ‘Act’) .
3. The facts in brief leading to this petition are:
The case of the prosecution is that on 30.08.2015 at about 2.00 p.m. they had received a credible information that certain persons had indulged in gambling at Sri Sai Sagar Recreation Association situated at I Floor, Palace Guttahalli, Vinayak Circle, Bengaluru, by betting money. On receipt of said information, a raid came to be conducted at 2.00 pm and petitioners herein were apprehended and cash found at club premises was seized. Hence, alleging that petitioners have committed the offence punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Act, charge sheet came to be filed in CC NO.40562/2015. The jurisdictional Court taking cognizance of the offence alleged against the petitioners has issued process to petitioners/accused. Hence, for quashing of said proceedings, petitioners are before this Court.
4. It is the contention of Sri Raghunandan, learned counsel appearing for petitioners that charge sheet material does not disclose the nature of gambling alleged to have been indulged by the petitioners except a omnibus statement that game was being played by the petitioners was a ‘game of chance’. He would contend that in the absence of any such allegation, continuation of the proceedings against petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose and on the other hand, it would be an abuse of process of law and as such he has sought for quashing of proceedings pending against petitioners in C.C.No.40562/2015.
5. Per contra, Sri Rachaiah, learned HCGP would defend the action of prosecution and prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for parties and on perusal of the records, it is noticed that under similar circumstances, the Coordinate bench in Crl.P.No.4847/2017 C/w Crl.P.No.7694/2017 disposed of on 30.11.2017 after taking note of E.Eranna and Others –vs- State of Karnataka reported in 1977 KLJ 793 had held unless prosecution proves as to how game played by petitioners was game of chance and not game of skill and in what manner the bettings were placed, police could not have inferred that it was a pure and simple game of chance and not a game of skill and as such it came to be held in E.Eranna’s case that it was unable to reconcile as to how ‘video game’ played by the petitioners therein to be a game of chance only and no skill is required to play that particular game.
7. In the light of the aforesaid analysis of law, when facts on hand is examined, this Court has to necessarily arrive at a conclusion that petitioners are similarly placed, in as much as perusal of the charge sheet material would indicate that except a omnibus statement being made by the prosecution that petitioners had indulged in the game of chance by playing cards and each person was holding 25 cards in their hand and 13/14 cards were lying in front of them nothing else is stated namely, as to whether the game which was being played by the petitioners was a ‘game of chance’ or ‘game of skill’ is not indicated. In the light there being lacuna in this regard, if prosecution is allowed to continue, it would be of no avail in as much as if the charge sheet material even accepted to be true, it would not end in conviction. As such, continuation of present proceedings against petitioners would not sub- serve the ends of justice.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii) Proceedings pending against petitioners in C.C.No.40562/2015 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Court-1), Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru city for the offence under Section 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 is hereby quashed and they are acquitted of aforesaid offences.
In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/19 for stay does not survive for consideration and it is accordingly, disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE TL