Bombay High Court
Deepakkumar S/O. Sukhdeo Bansod vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. ... on 19 June, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
1 16.Cr.APL No.275.2018-J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.275 OF 2018.
Deepakkumar S/o. Sukhdeo Bansod,
Aged 38 years, Occ. Legal Practitioner,
R/o. Post Saundad, Tq. Sadak Arjuni,
Dist. Gondia. ....APPLICANT
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through P. S. O. Sakoli,
Dist. Bhandara.
2. Rameshwar S/o. Jairam Piprewar,
Aged 51 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. C/o. Police Station Sakoli,
Tq. Sakoli, Dist. Bhandara. .... NON-APPLICANTS
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Shri J. K. Matale, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri T. A. Mirza, A.P.P. for the non-applicant No.1/State.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 19.06.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER: AMIT B. BORKAR, J.]
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, challenging registration of the First Information
Report No.51/2018 dated 23.02.2018 registered with the non-
applicant No.1 - Police Station for the offence under Section 12(a)
of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887.
3. The First Information Report came to be registered
against the applicant and others with the accusations that on
22.02.2018 when the Police Inspector was patrolling alongwith
other police constables, he heard noise from the poultry farm of one
Khothele. It is alleged that when the police officials reached this
spot, they found some people engaged in gambling. On further
enquiry it was found that the applicant alongwith others were
playing Cutpatti game and cash of Rs. 3,000/- was found at the
spot. When the Police Authority took search of all six accused, the
applicant accused was found to be having cash of Rs.35,000/- and
one mobile handset. The Police Authorities also seized vehicle
standing in front of poultry farm. Therefore, an offence under
Section 12(a) of The Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act was
registered against the applicant and others.
4. The applicant therefore, filed the present application
challenging registration of the First Information Report. This Court
on 12.04.2018 issued notice to the non-applicants and by way of
interim relief, it is directed that the charge-sheet should not be filed
against the applicant.
5. The non-applicant No.1 filed reply stating that the
applicant was found engaged in gambling activities alongwith other
accused at a public place. It is stated that the Investigating Officer
carried out spot panchnama and prepared seizure memo. It is also
stated that the applicant did not made call to his client and
therefore, his defence that he had called his client is without
substance. It is stated that the investigation is almost complete and
the investigating agency has sufficient material showing
involvement of applicant in the crime alleged against him.
6. We have carefully scrutinized the allegations in the First
Information Report and reply filed by the non-applicants. For
proper appreciation of question involved, it is necessary to set out
provisions of Section 12(a) of the Maharashtra Prevention of
Gambling Act, 1887 which reads as under :
"12. A Police officer may apprehend [and search]
without warrant--
(a) any person found [gaming][or reasonably suspected
to be gaming], in any public street, [or thoroughfare, or
in any place to which the public have or are permitted
to have access] [or in any race-course];
(b) ..................
(c) ..................."
7. From the allegations in the First Information Report
and the reply filed by the Investigating Agency, it appears that the
applicant alongwith others was found to be engaged in gambling
activities at the poultry farm of one Abhijit Mohan Khotele. From
the allegations in the First Information Report, it appears that the
said poultry farm is situated in the agricultural land of Abhijit
Mohan Khotele. Section 12(a) of the said Act requires that a person
is guilty of the said offence only when such person is found gaming
on any public street or any place to which the public have access.
The allegations in the First Information Report and the reply
demonstrate that the premises where the applicant was found
carrying out gambling activity was not a place where public have
access as the said place is the agricultural land owned by one Abhijit
Mohan Khotele. Therefore, we are satisfied that, even if, allegations
in the First Information Report are accepted to be correct, the
essential ingredients of the offence under Section 12(a) of the
Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 are not fulfilled.
Hence, the continuation of prosecution against the applicant would
amount to abuse of process of Court.
8. We therefore, pass the following order :
The First Information Report bearing No.51/2018 dated
23.02.20218 registered with the non-applicant No.1 - Police Station
for the offence under Section 12(a) of the Maharashtra Prevention
Of Gambling Act, 1887 is quashed and set aside qua the applicant
only.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
RGurnule
