more res integra and this Court has time and again held in the
Judgments reported in 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 1040, Robert Elango J.
vs. Inspector of Police and another; 2006 LawSuit (Bom) 2334,
K. L. Mansukhani vs. Surendra Kumar; 2012 (3) Mh.l.J. (Cri)
428, Jaywant Balkrishna Sail and Others .vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others and an unreported Judgment of this
Court, dt.13.6.2017 in Criminal Writ Petition No.544 of 2016
(Gajendra s/o. Shivprasad Kedia .vs. State of Maharashtra and
another) that unless the allegations in the F.I.R. disclose that the
accused were involved in playing a game of chance with the cards
and the game was mentioned, an offence under Section 12(a) of the
Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act cannot be prima facie made
out. No offence could be made out against the petitioner even if we
accept the allegations in the F.I.R. against the petitioner at their face
value. According to the respondents, the individual members of the
petitioner were playing the game of 'Rummy' and since the game of
'Rummy' is not a game purely of a chance and is a game of skill, the
offence could not have been registered against the petitioners.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.251 OF 2017
Fulsingh Naik Krida Mandir, Nagpur Vs The State of Maharashtra,
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 8.9.2017.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Writ Petition
is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the
learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks the quashing
and setting aside of the First Information Reports bearing Nos.
4259/2016, 4264/2016 and 3023/2017 registered against the
petitioner and it's members for the offences punishable under
Sections 4 and 5 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act.
3. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that it is held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court that 'Rummy' is a game of skill and
therefore, playing the game of 'Rummy' with cards would not be an
offence under the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act. It is
stated that on a perusal of the F.I.R. registered against the petitioner
and it's members, it could be seen that the only allegation made
against the petitioner and it's members is that, in the premises of the
petitioner, the members were involved in playing 'Rummy” with
cards and certain money and counters (coins) were recovered from
each of the individuals. It is stated that even if the allegations made
in the F.I.R. are accepted at their face value in the entirety, it cannot
be said that the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the
Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act could be prima facie made
out. It is stated that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the Judgment reported in AIR 1968 SC 825, State of Andhra
Pradesh .vs. K. Satyanarayana is followed by this Court from time
to time and the proceedings initiated against the accused for the
offences punishable under the Prevention of Gambling Act are
quashed and set aside after recording a finding that 'Rummy” is a
game of skill and not purely of chance and hence, the persons
involved in playing 'Rummy” cannot be prosecuted for the offence
punishable under the said Act.
4. Mr.S.S.Doifode, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondents does not dispute the position of law as
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is, however, stated that
when a raid was conducted in the petitionerKrida Mandal, the
raiding party had seized coins, cards and money which were
deposited with the cashier. It is stated that since the individual
members of the petitioner were involved in playing 'Rummy' with
money, the offences punishable under the Prevention of Gambling
Act are registered against them.
5. The issue involved in this Criminal Writ Petition is no
more res integra and this Court has time and again held in the
Judgments reported in 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 1040, Robert Elango J.
vs. Inspector of Police and another; 2006 LawSuit (Bom) 2334,
K. L. Mansukhani vs. Surendra Kumar; 2012 (3) Mh.l.J. (Cri)
428, Jaywant Balkrishna Sail and Others .vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others and an unreported Judgment of this
Court, dt.13.6.2017 in Criminal Writ Petition No.544 of 2016
(Gajendra s/o. Shivprasad Kedia .vs. State of Maharashtra and
another) that unless the allegations in the F.I.R. disclose that the
accused were involved in playing a game of chance with the cards
and the game was mentioned, an offence under Section 12(a) of the
Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act cannot be prima facie made
out. No offence could be made out against the petitioner even if we
accept the allegations in the F.I.R. against the petitioner at their face
value. According to the respondents, the individual members of the
petitioner were playing the game of 'Rummy' and since the game of
'Rummy' is not a game purely of a chance and is a game of skill, the
offence could not have been registered against the petitioners.
6. Hence, for the reasons recorded hereinabove and also for
the reasons recorded in the Judgments reported in 2004 ALL MR
(Cri) 1040, Robert Elango J. vs. Inspector of Police and another;
2006 LawSuit (Bom) 2334, K. L. Mansukhani vs. Surendra Kumar;
2012 (3) Mh.l.J. (Cri) 428, Jaywant Balkrishna Sail and Others .vs.
State of Maharashtra and Others and the unreported Judgment of
this Court, dt.13.6.2017 in Criminal Writ Petition No.544 of 2016
(Gajendra s/o. Shivprasad Kedia .vs. State of Maharashtra and
another) and AIR 1968 SC 825, State of Andhra Pradesh .vs. K.
Satyanarayana, the First Information Reports registered against the
petitioner and it's members bearing Nos.4259/2016, 4264/2016 and
3023/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the
Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act are hereby quashed and set
aside.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment