Rajasthan High Court
Dalpat Singh S/O Shri Udai Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 August, 2021
Bench: Satish Kumar Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2568/2019
Dalpat Singh S/o Shri Udai Singh, Aged About 41 Years, By
Caste Rajput, R/o Goyali Thana, Kotwali Sirohi (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through P.P.
2. Superintendent of Police Alwar, Rajasthan
3. Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Alwar
(Rajasthan)
4. Investigation Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Alwar,
(Rajasthan)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2400/2013
Ganpat Singh S/o Shri Roop Singh R/o Tej Mandi Alwar (PS
Kotwali Alwar) Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through P P
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyam Prakash Sharma, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR SHARMA
Order
06/08/2021
SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.2568/2019
1. This Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against
the order dated 4-4-2019 In Cr. Revision No.51/2019 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge No.1 Alwar dismissing revision petition
and affirming order dated 24-1-2019 in Cr.Case No.32/2019
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-2568/2019]
passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Alwar vide which cognizance
has been taken against the petitioner under Sections 3 and 4 of
the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949.
SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.2400/2013
2. This Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against
the order dated 3-6-2013 in Cr. Revision No.59/2012 passed by
Sessions Judge, Alwar dismissing revision petition and affirming
order dated 21-6-2011 in Cr.Case No.193/2011 passed by Chief
Judicial Magistrate Alwar vide which cognizance has been taken
against the petitioner under Sections 3 and 4 of the Rajasthan
Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949.
3. Since both these miscellaneous petitions challenge the
orders of cognizance which have been affirmed by the Revisional
Court, therefore, the same are being decided by a common order.
4. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the
material made available on record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned
trial courts as well as learned Revisional Courts in these matters
have not appreciated the fact that the petitioners herein were
running Video game parlour only for the purpose of entertainment
with the help of electronic machines. The petitioners were not
involved in any sort of gambling or betting. The Video game is
purely a game of skill, which cannot be termed as a game of
chance and the same is saved under Section 12 of the RPGO. A
copy of the bill of video game electronic machine was produced
before the police authorities. No case under Sections 3 and 4 of
the RPGO is made out against the petitioners. The impugned
orders are contrary to well settled legal position, which deserve to
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-2568/2019]
be quashed and set aside. The petitions deserve to be allowed.
Reliance has been placed on Sunil Goyal Vs. State of Rajasthan
[2006(1) WLC 235], Suendra Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan [SB
Cr. Misc. Petition No.1986/2006 decided on 19-11-2016] and Tulsi
Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan [2003 WLC Raj. UC 8].
6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petitions with the
submission that the learned Revisional Courts have appreciated
the matter in proper perspective and no case is made out for
interference with the impugned orders. The petitions deserve to
be dismissed.
7. Both these petitions have been filed by the petitioners whose
revision petitions have been dismissed confirming the orders of
the trial courts of taking cognizance. Hence the same are not
maintainable as per provisions of Section 397(3) and 399(3) CrPC.
However, as discussed herein after, the petitions are not
maintainable on merits also.
8. True it is that as per the judgments cited on behalf of the
petitioners, if a person is found running simple video game, which
is a game of skill, he cannot be held guilty of offence under
Sections 3 and 4 of RPGO. But in both these cases the complaints
and material submitted along with the complaints prima facie
indicate that the petitioners were not found running simple video
game at the rate of Rs.1/- per person for their entertainment as
shown at the spot, instead they were found involved in betting.
Besides, oral evidence, betting money was seized on the spot. On
the basis of bills of machines only, it cannot be conclusively said
that the machines were not used for betting. The machines so
seized, were found to be cashino machines, which were being
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-2568/2019]
used for betting. The process adopted for betting has been clearly
mentioned in the complaints and supporting material, which is
sufficient for cognizance in these matters.
9. It is well settled legal position that at the time of cognizance,
the trial court is not supposed to meticulously examine the marits
of the case and it has to take cognizance of the offence, if
sufficient grounds are available for proceeing against the accused
person(s). As discussed above, it cannot be said the learned trial
courts have not applied their mind or the cognizance have been
taken without sufficient grounds.
10. In the cases cited by the petitioners the concerned persons
were not found involved in betting and they were simply running
video games, but in these cases, as indicated above, the
petitioners were found involved in betting. Therefore, the
judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not
applicable to these case. Thus no case is made out to interfere in
the impugned orders. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed.
11. However, the petitioners are at liberty to raise all his grounds
in their defence before the trial court and the trial court shall
consider the same independently on the basis of evidence adduced
by both the sides without being influenced by the impugned
orders and this order.
(SATISH KUMAR SHARMA),J
Arn/83
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
