Bombay High Court
Prakash S/O Marotrao Kolhe vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 12 March, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1 APL261,
262 and 272.16-2.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.261 OF 2016
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.262 OF 2016
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.272 OF 2016
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.261 OF 2016
Mr. Jaikumar S/o Shrikisan Sharma,
Aged about : 45 years,
occupation : private,
R/o Patelpura Ward,
Bhandara. ... APPLICANT
// V E R S U S //
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Department of Home,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Superintendent of Police,
Bhandara, District Bhandara.
3. Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Bhandara,
District Bhandara.
4. Local Crime Branch,
Through its Police Inspector,
Bhandara, Dist. Bhandara. ... NON-APPLICANTS
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.262 OF 2016
Mr. Prakash s/o Marotrao Kolhe,
Age : 64 years,
occupation : business,
R/o Hanuman Mandir Ward,
Bhandara. ... APPLICANT
::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2021 10:30:32 :::
2 APL261,
262 and 272.16-2.odt
// V E R S U S //
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Department of Home,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Superintendent of Police,
Bhandara, District Bhandara.
3. Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Bhandara,
District Bhandara.
4. Local Crime Branch,
Through its Police Inspector,
Bhandara, Dist. Bhandara. ... NON-APPLICANTS
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.272 OF 2016
Naresh s/o Ashok Nandanwar,
Aged about : 34 years,
occupation : private,
R/o Village Bela, Bhandara,
Dist. Bhandara. ... APPLICANT
// V E R S U S //
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Home,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Superintendent of Police,
Bhandara, District Bhandara.
3. Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Bhandara,
District Bhandara.
4. Local Crime Branch,
Through its Police Inspector,
Bhandara, Dist. Bhandara. ... NON-APPLICANTS
::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2021 10:30:32 :::
3 APL261,
262 and 272.16-2.odt
Shri Vikrant Vishwarupe and Shri S. R. Kadam, Advocates h/f Shri
Rajnish Vyas, Advocate for applicants.
Shri N.S. Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-applicant Nos.1 to
4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- Z. A. HAQ AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED :- 12.03.2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Amit B. Borkar, J)
1. By these applications under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the applicants have challenged registration of the
First Information Report nos.3055/2016, 3056/2016 and 3057/2016
registered on 9.3.2016 and 11.3.2016 respectively with the non-
applicant no.3 - Police Station for offences under Sections 4 and 5 of
the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 and under Section
7 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 (for short, "the Act of
1998").
2. Since the allegations and subject matter of all three
criminal applications are same, the applications are being disposed
by common judgment.
3. The First Information Reports came to be registered
against each applicant with the accusations that the applicant in each
of the application was selling online lottery tickets by using two digits
instead of four digits, which was in contravention of Sections 4 and 7
4 APL261,
262 and 272.16-2.odt
of the Act of 1998.
4. The applicants have, challenged registration of the First
Information Reports by way of this application. This Court issued
notice to the non-applicants. The non-applicant no.1 filed reply in
each application. It is stated in the reply that the applicant on the
pretext of selling of online lottery tickets instead of playing lottery of
four digits, only two digits were used in the shop of the applicants. It
is stated that conducting online lottery on the basis of two digits was
specifically prohibited under the Rules and whoever contravenes the
Rules is deemed to have committed an offence under Sections 4 and 5
of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887. By way of
additional reply, it is pointed out that the Charge-sheets are already
filed against the applicants. There is sufficient material against the
applicants.
5. The applicants submitted that they are conducting their
business of lotteries, as per the conditions stated in the Rules and
under the Act. The reply of the prosecution specifically states that
they have seized computers and other material, which prima facie
shows that there is sufficient material available with the prosecution.
6. Overall perusal of the material placed before us makes out a
prima facie case against the applicants which is required to be
5 APL261,
262 and 272.16-2.odt
decided by conducting a full-fledged trial. At this stage, we cannot
analyse and meticulously consider the evidence and anticipate
whether it will end up in conviction or acquittal. This is not a stage to
decide whether there is any truth in the allegations made but to
form an opinion whether on the basis of the allegation a cognizable
offence or offences alleged has been prima facie made out. The guilt
or otherwise of the applicants can be proved only after conducting
full-fledged trial. In the circumstances, in our opinion, it is not proper
for us to interfere with the proceedings and quash the First
Information Reports. We, therefore, cannot persuade ourselves to
hold that continuation of the proceedings would result in abuse of
process of the Court. Therefore, we find no merit in the Criminal
Application Nos.261/2016, 262/2016 and 272/2016 and the same
are rejected.
JUDGE JUDGE
Ambulkar
