Karnataka High Court

Sri Balaram Khadaka vs State Of Karnataka on 23 October, 2024

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                   -1-
                                                              NC: 2024:KHC:42766
                                                          WP No. 26678 of 2023




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

                                               BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


                           WRIT PETITION NO. 26678 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

                   BETWEEN:

                          SRI. BALARAM KHADAKA,
                          AGED 46 YEARS,
                          PROPRIETOR, STAR ENTERPRISES,
                          HOUSE NO.365, GROUND FLOOR,
                          OLD FLAT NO.647/636/197,
                          NEAR OMKAR NAGAR,
                          SOUTH WEST DELHI,
                          DELHI - 110 035.
                                                                    ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. SHIVA SHANKAR C., ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
                          BY CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION,
                          BENGALURU, REP. BY SPP,
Digitally signed by       HIGH COURT BUILDING,
NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
                          BENGALURU - 560 001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA           2.    DR. SUDHAKAR B.S,
                          AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
                          OCC: POLICE INSPECTOR,
                          CCB, SE, N.T. PETE,
                          BENGALURU - 560 006.
                                                                  ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP)

                        THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
                   CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
                   QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06/11/2023 IN C.C. NO. 2772/2022
                   PASSED BY THE MMTC-II AT BANGALORE IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED
                   VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND SUBSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW IA UNDER
                                -2-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC:42766
                                          WP No. 26678 of 2023




SECTION 451 AND 457 OF CR.P.C. TO DIRECT THE R1 POLICE TO
DEFREEZE DEBIT A/C NO. 922020006231863 AXIS BANK AND ETC.,

      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


                         ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri.Shiva Shankar C., learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner and Sri. Rangaswamy R., the learned High

Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the

judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

W.P.Nos.19749/2023 c/w 19884/2023, 19488/2023

and 19773/2023 disposed of on 20.09.2023, wherein this

Court has held as follows:

"3. The case of the prosecution is that on receiving credible information, a raid was conducted and upon inspection it was uncovered that the accused were involved in betting on the World Cup T20 Match and the allegation against the petitioners is that they had financial transaction with the other accused.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they were not involved in cricket betting, however, the police have frozen the bank accounts standing in their names. The petitioners filed an

NC: 2024:KHC:42766

application under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. to direct the police to defreeze their respective accounts. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said application. The petitioners preferred revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition. Hence, these petitions.

5. Smt. Pramila Nesargi, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the absence of any incriminating materials that the petitioners were involved in the cricket betting along with other accused, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable in law. She further submits that freezing the bank accounts of the petitioners is contrary to Section 102 of Cr.P.C. Further, she submits that the Co-ordiante Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.2929/2020 has held that, Cricket is a sport and therefore even if betting takes place, it cannot be brought within the ambit of definition of `gaming' found in Karnataka Police Act.

6. Per contra, Sri M.R.Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the charge sheet material discloses that the petitioners herein were involved in the cricket betting and the money which was derived from cricket betting was transferred to the bank accounts belonging to the petitioners and the learned Magistrate has rightly dismissed the application for defreezing the bank accounts. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.

7. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Section 102 of Cr.P.C. deals with the powers of the Police Officer to seize certain properties.

8. Section 102 of Cr.P.C. specifies that any police officer may seize any property which may be reported or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under situations that originate suspicion of the commission of any crime or offence.

9. Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C. specifies that every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having

NC: 2024:KHC:42766

jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court, he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required.

10. A reading of the aforesaid provision indicates that the freezing the bank accounts of the petitioners shall be reported to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. In the instant case, the Investigating Officer has not reported the freezing of the bank accounts of the petitioners to the learned Magistrate. The petitioners have been implicated solely on the basis that they had financial transaction with the other accused and the proceeds of the cricket betting have been transferred to their respective accounts, however, no incriminating material are produced to substantiate the said allegation that the proceeds of the cricket betting were transferred to the account of the petitioners herein. The coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.2929/2020 and connected cases vide order dated 10.01.2022 at para-12 has held as follows:

"12. One of the petitioners is bookie said to have involved in betting. Sri Hashmath Pasha has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket vs Cricket Association of Bihar and others (2016 (8) SCC 535) where it is observed that betting is to be legalized. It was argued by the respondent that betting amounts to gaming which is an offence under the Karnataka Police Act. If Section 2(7) of the Karnataka Police Act is seen, its explanation very clearly says that game of chance does not include any athletic game or sport. Cricket is a sport and therefore even if betting takes place, it cannot be brought within the ambit of definition of `gaming' found in Karnataka Police Act."

11. Therefore, even accepting that the proceeds of the cricket betting were transferred to the account of the petitioners, the same cannot be construed as an offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act in view of the ratio enumerated by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.2929/2020 and

NC: 2024:KHC:42766

connected cases. Accordingly, the petitioners have made out a case for defreezing of their bank accounts.

12. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i. The petitions are allowed.

ii. In WP 19749/2023 - Impugned order dated 10.04.2023 in CC No. 2772/2022 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-II, Bangalore, is hereby set aside.

Consequently, IA is allowed directing respondent No.1 police to defreeze HDFC debit A/c 5020067377733, forthwith.

iii. In WP 19884/2023 - Impugned order dated 10.04.2023 in CC No. 2772/2022 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-II, Bangalore, is hereby set aside.

Consequently, IA is allowed directing respondent No.1 police to defreeze HDFC debit A/c 10108823010, forthwith.

iv. In WP 19488/2023 - Impugned order dated 10.04.2023 in CC No. 2772/2022 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court- II, Bangalore, is hereby set aside.

Consequently, IA is allowed directing the respondent No.1 police to defreeze HDFC debit A/c 50200003205393, forthwith.

v. In WP 19773/2023 - Impugned order dated 30.11.2022 in CC No. 2772/2022 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-II, Bangalore and impugned order dated 25.03.2023 in Cr.R.P No. 636/2022 on the file of LXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 70), Bangalore, are hereby set aside.

Consequently, IA is allowed directing the respondent No.1 police to defreeze HDFC debit A/c 50200004599586, forthwith.

NC: 2024:KHC:42766

3. In the light of the order passed by the

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (supra) and for the reasons

aforementioned, the following: