Bombay High Court
Vilas Pandurangji Burange And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., ... on 12 January, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
(1) 907.cri.165.2019.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.165/2019
1. Vilas Pandurangji Burange,
aged about 63 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o Malviya Pura, Tq. Morshi,
Dist. Amravati.
2. Dnyaneshwar s/o Shripad Mulhar,
Aged 60 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Pimpalkhuta Motha,
Tq. Morshi, Dist. Amravati.
3. Vijay s/o Rambhau Dhole,
Aged about 70 years, Occ: Retired,
R/o Radhakrushna Colony, Morshi,
Tq. Morshi, Dist. Amravati.
4. Prashant s/o Bhimraoji Sathavne,
Aged 32 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Pethpura, Morshi,
Tq. Morshi, Dist. Amravati.
5. Dipak s/o Rambhauji Patil,
Aged 50 years, Occ: Labourer,
R/o Shankarnagar, Amravati,
Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
6. Haridas S/o Anandrao Fande,
Aged 39 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o. Pethpura, Morshi,
Tq. Morshi, Dist. Amravati.
7. Dhanraj S/o Shivramji Bodadekar,
Aged 60 years, Occ: Labourer,
R/o Ambedkar Chowk, Morshi,
Tq. Morshi, Dist. Amravati.
8. Bharat S/o Vitthalrao Badodekar,
Aged 40 years, Occ: Labourer,
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 12:52:12 :::
(2) 907.cri.165.2019.docx
R/o Ambedkar Chowk, Morshi,
Tq. Morshi, Dist. Amravati. ..... PETITIONERS
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra through
P.S.O. Police Station Morshi,
Tq. Morshi, Dist. Amravati.
2. Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
Morshi, Tq. Morshi, Dist. Amravati.
3. Rajesh Kaniram Rathod,
aged Major, Occ. Service as P.S.O.,
Anjangaon Surji, Tq. Anjangaon Surji,
Dist. Amravati. .... RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R. G. Kavimandan, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A. S. Fulzele, Addl. P. P. for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATED : 12/01/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
1] Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2] Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
3] According to the learned counsel for the petitioner no offence
whatsoever has been made out against the petitioner as it is an admitted fact
that, what was being played at their club was a game of rummy and not game
of three cards. Learned Addl. P. P. disagrees and in order to substantiate his
(3) 907.cri.165.2019.docx
disagreement, the learned Addl. P. P. has taken us through the allegations
made in the FIR.
4] Upon perusal of the FIR, it is seen that the allegation is very
specific and it is about playing of game of three cards from out of a pack of 52
cards. It is also seen that there is an allegation that this game of three cards
was being wagered upon on the stake of money. Of course, there is a mention
in the crime details form that game of rummy was being played. But, crime
details form being a document built upon the foundation of the FIR, can never
prevail over a foundational document like the FIR. Whatever which is stated
in crime details form and which is inconsistent with the allegations made in the
FIR would have to be ignored.
5] In the circumstances, it is quite clear that offences punishable
under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Gambling Act are prima facie made
out against all the petitioners who were present at the time of raid and
therefore, this is not a fit case for making any interference in the matter.
The Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
Sarkate.
