whether offence is cognizable or not will have to be considered in the light of provisions of special law wherever special provision is attracted.

Offence punishable under Section 12(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 is non-cognizable. The statutory provisions made under Section 4 & 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which clarify that all offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of the Code. While all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also makes it clear that nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force. Thus, whether offence is cognizable or not will have to be considered in the light of

provisions of special law wherever special provision is attracted. Such provision shall ordinarily prevail, thus the submission that the offence under Section 12(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 is non-cognizable, cannot be accepted.

Bombay High Court

Mr. Kailash Shreekisan Chaurasia vs The State Of Maharashtra on 29 July, 2011

Bench: A.P. Bhangale

1. Heard Mr. P. S. Tiwari, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. M. K. Pathan, learned APP for Respondent-State.

2. The petitioner has questioned the charge-sheet in C.C. No. 185/2010 pending on the file of Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate 2

First Class, Warud, whereby, the applicant was charge-sheeted on the ground that he has committed an offence punishable under Section 12(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 and read along with Section 131 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the charge-sheet.

3. The petitioner claims that he possess a licence issued by Additional District Magistrate, empowered under Rule 109 under the rule for licensing and Controlling Place of Public Amusement (Other than Cinemas) and Performance for public Amusement. The licence was granted conditionally in favour of the petitioner authorizing him to run business in the name as "M/s. Dream World Video Game Parlor" at Warud between 10.00 am to 10.00 p.m. at M.C. Complex, Ward No. 8, Warud, District Amravati.

4. It appears that the licence was granted for 10 machines which are described as (1) Super Mini Target (2) Champion (3) Mini Target (4) Super Golden Wheel (5) Battle Continental (6) Tarzan (7) Target (8) 7 updown (9) Winter Zoo (10) Giant Sakpot. The condition was included in the licence that the licensee shall not promote, encourage or connive gambling in whatever form. Thus, permit was granted under Section (2) (B) of the Bombay Entertainments Act, 1923 in respect of a video games in view of Section 4(2)(b) of the Bombay Entertainment Duty Act, 1923.

3

5. According to petitioner, licence is renewed for the period from 31/12/2008 to 31/12/2011. The petitioner also possess a Registration Certificate issued under Bombay Shops & Establishment Act 1948, for the commercial establishment, in the name of "Dreamworld Video Game Parlor And Cyber Cafe".

6. It appears that the complaint was lodged by PSI namely Adharsing S/o Sardarsing Sonone, registered as FIR No. 3109/09 on 17/12/09, at Warud Police Station, District Amravati under Section 12(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 and under Section 131 of the Bombay Police Act. It appears case of the prosecution that police had come across with the news item published in daily Marathi newspaper "Dainik Deshounnati" on 17/12/2009, that the applicant was illegally running a gambling den at Warud near statute of father of nation. On the basis of the news published, police had formed a team, collected secret information and raided the premises of the petitioner. According to the police, while going towards the center, 4-5 persons ran away from the centre when they came to know about the police raid. At that time, Raju Girdharilal Trivedi & Avinash Gangadhar Bobde who were found to be present in the centre. When they were questioned by police, they disclosed the name of petitioner to be the owner of Video Game Parlor. The police found 16 computer machines in raid at the centre whereas the permission/licence to run video game was granted only for 10 4

computer machines, of which value is Rs. 3,50,000/-. According to police, it was disclosed that Raju Trivedi & Avinash Bobde were accepting money from members of public for playing game "Ekka Badshah". Police also seized a cash amount of Rs. 400/- which is alleged to have been collected from the people for playing "Ekka Badshah". The statement of Avinash Bobde and Raju Trivedi were recorded during the course of investigation. Thus, after completing of the investigation, the petitioner was charge-sheeted.

7. Learned Advocate for the petitioner made reference to the following rulings;

(i) Robert Elango J. V/s. Inspector of Police & Anr. reported in 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 1040

(ii) Avinash Madhukar Mukhedkar V/s. The State of Maharashtra reported in 1983 CRI L.J. 1833

(iii) Unreported Judgment in K.L. Mansukhani & others V/s. Inspector of Police, Nirmal Nagar Police Station, Bandra & arf in Criminal Writ Petition No. 9 of 1994 delivered on 17th October, 2001.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that there is no prima facie case to believe that the offence punishable under Section 12(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 and Section 131 of Bombay Police Act, were committed as, according to him, statement of none other than the two employees of the petitioner 5

were recorded and, therefore, there no offence was disclosed punishable under Section 12(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887. It is further submitted that the offences were in the nature of non-cognizable offences and the police ought not to have taken cognizance thereof so as to investigate the same and file charge- sheet against the petitioner. Learned Advocate, while making reference to K.L. Mansukhani & others (cited supra) submitted that under Section 155(2), no police officer shall investigate a non- cognizable offence without the order of the Magistrate. He also made a reference to the ruling in the case of Avinash Madhukar Mukhedkar (cited supra) to substantiate this submission.

8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner is already charge-sheeted on the basis of investigation carried out by the police and, therefore, petitioner may have an alternative efficacious remedy to seek discharge from the case. On merits, it is submitted that under Section 12(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, the police have power to arrest without warrant for gaming. A Police officer can apprehend and search without warrant any person who is found gaming or reasonably suspected to be gaming in any public street or thoroughfare, or in any place to which the public have or are permitted to have access. Such offence although punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 3 months and fine which may extend to Rs. 300/-, 6

the special provision under Section 12(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 made the offence cognizable by the Police, as Police have power to arrest any person who is gaming or reasonably suspected to be gaming at public place or such other place where the public have access by permission or otherwise. He also made reference to Section 131 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, which provides for punishment for contravention of any rule or order made under section 33 or any of the conditions of a licence issued under such rule or order.

According to the learned A.P.P. in the premises which was raided by the police, they had found 16 computer machines for video games while permission was granted only for 10 machines with specific names and description.

9. Learned Advocate for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the ruling in case of State of Haryana and others V/s. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 in which seven categories have been mentioned for exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. in paragraph 108 of the ruling. One cannot have dispute in respect of the guidelines laid down in paragraph 108 of the ruling in Bhajanlal's case, thus,

"108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the

Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles 7

of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the

extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the

Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following

categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised

either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of

justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an

exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases

wherein such power should be exercised.

1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case

against the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the First

Information Report and other materials, if

any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of

a Magistrate within the purview of Section

155(2) of the Code.

8

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations

made in the FIR or complaint and the

evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence

and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the

Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR

or complaint are so absurd and inherently

improbable on the basis of which no prudent

person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding

against the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar

engrafted in any of the provisions of the

Code of the concerned Act (under which a

criminal proceeding is instituted) to the

institution and continuance of the proceedings and / or where there is a

specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

9

7. Where a criminal proceeding is

manifestly attended with mala fide and/or

where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and

with a view to spite him due to private and

personal grudge.

10. Be that as it may, it cannot be said in this case that the offence punishable under Section 12(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 is non-cognizable. The statutory provisions made under Section 4 & 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which clarify that all offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of the Code. While all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also makes it clear that nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force. Thus, whether offence is cognizable or not will have to be considered in the light of 10

provisions of special law wherever special provision is attracted. Such provision shall ordinarily prevail, thus the submission that the offence under Section 12(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 is non-cognizable, cannot be accepted. On merits, it appears from the statement recorded of Avinash Bobde and Raju Trivedi that admittedly they are employees of the petitioner and it appears to have stated in the statement that they used to take money from the people and put into the machine through button and thereby they played the game "Ekka Badshah". The amount paid by the customer was to be doubled and paid back to the customer if the number displayed on the Video Game Machine shows sequence, flash in the card game known as "Ekka Badshah". The witnesses also made it clear that although the licence issued for running Video Game Parlor was only for 10 machines, but 16 machines were found actually to be operated in the centre. Looking to this material collected in the course of investigation, although there is no statement of outsider or member of the public but petitioner's employees were found present at the time of raid while 4/5 persons ran away. It cannot be said that no offence was committed. Police have carried out investigation and upon completion of investigation decided to file charge-sheet against petitioner under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is now under judicial scrutiny. In view of this, the trial Court must be allowed to proceed further. It is open for the petitioner to apply before the learned trial Court for discharge from the case on the ground that no 11

offence was committed by him or that no prima facie case appears against him. But, looking into the material collected during the investigation, charge-sheet cannot be termed either malafide or malicious. Therefore, quashing of proceedings by the High Court is not permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Filing of FIR or charge-sheet against the accused does not violate the constitutional mandate under Article 221, as observed by the Apex Court in the ruling of State of Bihar and Another V/s. Shri. P. P. Sharma and Another reported in AIR 1991 SC 1260. The Apex Court in para 68 of the ruling observed that, after the charge-sheet was filed, the F.I.R. no longer remains sheet anchor. The charge-sheet and the evidence placed in support thereof form the base for the Court to take or refuse to take cognizance. It is not the case that no offence has been made out from material in the charge-sheet and the First Information Report. It is, therefore, not necessary to consider all the decisions dealing with the scope of the power of the High Court either under S. 482, Cr. P. C. or Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash the First Information Report.

11. In sequel, therefore, no case is made out for to quash the F.I.R. and charge-sheet. Hence, this petition is disposed of. JUDGE

Punde 

Print Page