Karnataka High Court
Roshan Jameer vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8544
CRL.P No. 102038 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102038 OF 2024
(482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
ROSHAN JAMEER,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: POLICE OFFICER,
R/O. THORANAGALLU POLICE STATION,
TQ. SANDUR, DIST. BALLARI-583123.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANWAR BASHA B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
(THROUGH THORANAGALLU P.S.BALLARI),
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally signed HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT: DHARWAD-580001.
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR ...RESPONDENT
Location: High
Court of
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR REGISTERED BY
THORANAGALLU P.S. BALLARI PENDING BEFORE CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC AT: SANDUR IN CRIME NO.104/2024, FOR AN
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S.87 O KARNATAKA POLICE ACT,
1963, BY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION IN SO FOR AS
THIS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 IS CONCERNED, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8544
CRL.P No. 102038 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
Heard Sri B.Anwar Basha., learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent - State.
2. The petitioner-accused No.5 has filed this
petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., [528 of BNSS,
2023], praying to quash the entire proceedings in Crime
No.104/2024 of Thoranagallu P.S, Ballari, for the offence
punishable under Section 87 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963
(for short 'K.P.Act'), pending on the file of learned Civil
Judge and JMFC, Sandur.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the
judgments rendered by the co-ordinate benches of this
Court in Crl.P.No.100877/2014, disposed on
13.06.2014, which read as under:
"5. On analysing the above said provision of
law, this Court has rendered a decision reported
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8544
HC-KAR
in 1971(2) Mys. L.J. 187 in the case of
Chickarangappa & Others Vs. State of 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 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8544
HC-KAR
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.100031/2014,
disposed on 03.03.2015, it is held as follows:
"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
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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8544
HC-KAR
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
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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8544
HC-KAR
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 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".
4. In the light of the afore-extracted judgments
rendered by the co-ordinate benches of this Court, and the
facts and circumstances of the present case on hand, I
deem it appropriate to quash the proceedings, qua the
petitioner.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8544
HC-KAR
5. For the reasons stated supra, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The entire proceedings in Crime No.104/2024
of Thoranagallu P.S, Ballari, for the offence
punishable under Section 87 of Karnataka
Police Act, 1963 (for short 'K.P.Act'), pending
on the file of learned Civil Judge and JMFC,
Sandur, insofar it relates to the petitioner,
stand quashed.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
AM/-
CT-AN
