Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1391 (RAJ)

Dalpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2021-08-06

SATISH KUMAR SHARMA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Satish Kumar Sharma, J. S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2568/2019 1. This Petition has been filed u/Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 4.4.2019 In Cr. Revision No. 51/2019 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 Alwar dismissing revision petition and affirming order dated 24.1.2019 in Cr. Case No. 32/2019 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 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. 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) Cr.P.C.. 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 casino machines, which were being 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 merits of the case and it has to take cognizance of the offence, if sufficient grounds are available for proceeding 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. 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.