Karnataka High Court
Sri. Sunil S/O. Basavaraj Sutar vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8224
CRL.P No. 102411 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102411 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI SUNIL
S/O. BASAVARAJ SUTAR
AGE 26 YEARS
OCCUPATION: LABOUR
RESIDENT OF TEACHERS COLONY
BADIGER GALLI, JAMKHANDI
TALUK & DISTRICT - BAGALKOT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE SRIKANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
Digitally signed THROUGH JAMAKHANDI TOWN P.S.
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR JAMAKHANDI.
Location: High
Court of ...RESPONDENT
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, H.C.G.P.)
***
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
THE CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL
CASE NO.99 OF 2025 ALONG WITH CHARGE-SHEET BEARING
NO.116 OF 2024 DATED 21.11.2024 AND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL
PROCEEDINGS ARISING THERE FROM IN F.I.R. NO.104 OF 2024
DATED 20.11.2024 REGISTERED AT JAMKHANDI TOWN POLICE
STATION AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6 PENDING
BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., JAMKHANDI.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8224
CRL.P No. 102411 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
The petitioner/accused No.6 has filed this petition under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying
to quash the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.99 of 2025
on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Jamkhandi, for the offence punishable under
Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
2. Heard Smt. Veena Hegde Srikant, learned counsel for
the petitioner, and Smt. Kirtilata Patil, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent-State
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended
that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the
judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court
in Criminal Petition No.100877 of 2014, disposed on 13-
6-2014, which read as follows:
"5. On analysing the above said provision of
law, this Court has rendered a decision
reported in 1971 (2) Mys. L.J. 187 in the case
of Chickarangappa & Others Vs. State of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8224
HC-KAR
Mysore and another decision reported in 1977
(1) K.L.J. 274 in the case of Eranna Vs. State
of Karnataka, which decisions declare that,
"playing 'Andar Bahar' is a game of skill and
not mere a game of chance and therefore, the
offence punishable under Section 79 and 80 of
the Act are not attracted".
6. In the ruling reported in 1977 (1) K.L.J. 274
(supra), this Court has categorically held that,
game of 'Andar Bahar' is not a game of chance.
The facts are also little bit relevant as quoted in
the said case. At paragraph 7 of the said
judgment, it is stated that;
"In this view of the matter, the
essential ingredient of the offence was
not proved. It could not be established
that the petitioner - accused were
playing a game of chance and one
does not know how the game 'Andar
Bahar' is actually played with the
assistance of cards. Even if any
betting was resorted to and even if
any pledge of moveables was made in
support of that betting, that by itself
did not convert a game of a skill into a
game of chance. At any rate it was
not categorically proved that 'Andar
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8224
HC-KAR
Bahar' is a game of chance and that
these accused were playing that
game. They were not covered under
the definition of gaming in a common
house. Since the institution where the
accused were found playing the game
with cards is a club, it is not unusual
that cards are played in a club, and it
may even be that some betting was
also being done. These facts by
themselves never proved that a game
of chance was being played or that no
skill was involved in that game so that
it could be considered to be a mere
game of chance. It is manifest that a
game of skill would not be held to be
gambling for the purpose of the Act.
In this view of the matter, no offence
under Sections 79 and 80 of the
Karnataka Police Act, 1963 was made
out against the petitioners. Hence the
conviction of sentence was set aside".
and in Criminal Revision Petition No.100031 of 2014,
disposed on 3-3-2015, it is held as follows:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8224
HC-KAR
"This revision petition is filed under Section 397
read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. by the State,
aggrieved by the order passed by the learned
Magistrate in releasing the interim custody of
the cash amount in favour of accused No.2/
respondent No.2.
2. Succinctly stated, the P.S.I. of Honnavar
Police Station charge sheeted the respondents
for the offence punishable under Section 87 of
K.P. Act. The accused were on bail. During the
raid the Investigating Officer had seized cash of
Rs.34,468/-, which is alleged to be the gaming
money. Respondent No.2 moved an application
under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of the
said amount. The application was contested by
the prosecution. The court below allowed the
application and released the interim custody of
cash amount in favour of the applicant/
respondent No.2 on executing an indemnity
bond for Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the
likesum. However, care was taken by the court
below by directing accused No.1 to assist the
C.M.O. of the Court to take the photographs of
the currency notes at his cost.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner - State
submits that the trial Court has lost sight of the
fact that the amount was seized while the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8224
HC-KAR
accused were indulged in playing Andar Bahar.
In the event prosecution successfully proves its
case, said money is liable to be confiscated to
the State Government. The court had acted on
the fabricated documents produced by the
accused No.2 projecting that the money belong
to Srikumar Roadlines, under whom he was
employed. Though the prosecution had
disputed the said document without probing
about the veracity of the document, the trial
Court has hurriedly released the interim
custody of the cash amount. In fact the said
cash amount is required to be marked in
evidence during the trial. The currency notes
are not perishable in nature and there was no
dire necessity to release the interim custody of
the cash amount in favour of second applicant.
The accused No.5 has pleaded guilty and was
imposed fine, that strengthens the case of
prosecution. In the judgment of this Court
reported in 1993 CRL.L.J. 3109 in the case of
T. Narayanaswamy vs. State and Others, it has
been held that release of money seized for the
interim custody is bad in law. Hence, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. In reply, Sri Anoop G. Deshpande, learned
counsel for R1 to R4 and R6 to R7 submits that
the impugned order being in the nature of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8224
HC-KAR
interlocutory order is not amenable to the
revision jurisdiction. Hence, the very petition
itself is not maintainable. In fact, the money
seized was not the gaming money, but it
belongs to his employer Srikumar Roadlines
and the court below having satisfied about his
contention was pleased to release the interim
custody to his possession. However, the
interest of State is protected by directing him
to execute the indemnity bond for Rs.50,000/-
with one surety for the likesum. Even the
interest of the prosecution about the
identification of the currency notes is also
taken care by directing him to assist the C.M.O.
of the Court at his cost in taking photographs
of the currency notes.
5. Respondent No.5 is served and not
represented.
6. As regards the first contention about the
maintainability of the revision petition, by a
catena of judicial pronouncements of this Court
and other High Courts, it is held that the
release of interim custody of the seized
property is the nature of adjudication of the
rights of the parties in reference to the said
property. The said order is amenable for
revision jurisdiction under Section 397 of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8224
HC-KAR
Cr.P.C. Hence, there is no merit in the
contention that this petition is not
maintainable.
7. As regards the merit of the impugned order
is concerned, the court below being convinced
with a certificate produced by the second
applicant issued by his employer Srikumar
Roadlines and also daily enquiry report dated
14.11.2012 has inferred that he is an employee
of the said Roadlines. Keeping open the
question of the ownership of the seized
property/cash amount in question the court
below has ordered interim custody by taking
the photographs of currency notes and also by
calling upon the applicant to execute the
indemnity bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety
for the likesum.
8. Under the circumstances, I hold that the
impugned has not prejudiced the case of the
State and it is not illegal. The grounds urged by
the State lacks merits and does not call for
interference of this Court. Accordingly, petition
is rejected".
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8224
HC-KAR
4. In the light of the afore-extracted judgments rendered
by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court and in the facts
obtaining in the case at hand, which covers the issue on all
aspects, I deem it appropriate to quash the proceedings, qua
the petitioner.
5. For the reasons aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.99 of
2025 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamkhandi, for
the offence punishable under Section 87 of the
Karnataka Police Act, 1963, insofar as the
petitioner-accused No.6 stand quashed.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
KVK
