Telangana High Court Quashes Betting Case Against Teacher | Terms Proceedings an Abuse of Law | Incident Did Not Occur in a Public Place Under Gaming Act
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Telangana, Single Bench of Justice K. Sujana, has held that the continuation of criminal proceedings against an individual accused under Section 9(i) of the Telangana State Gaming Act, 2017, constituted an abuse of the process of law. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish a crucial ingredient of the alleged offence that the purported gaming activity occurred in a public street, thoroughfare, or a place to which the public had access. Consequently, the High Court directed the quashing of the proceedings pending before the trial court against the petitioner.
The matter came before the High Court through a Criminal Petition filed by an individual, identified as Accused No.8 in STC.No.811 of 2023, on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, Kalwakurthy. The petitioner sought the court's intervention to quash these proceedings, which were initiated for an offence punishable under Section 9(i) of the Telangana State Gaming Act, 2017.
The genesis of the case, as per the prosecution's account, dates back to 26.02.2023. On that day, at approximately 6:00 p.m., Respondent No.2, a police official, reportedly received an information regarding an illegal gambling activity. The location of this alleged activity was stated to be near the Indian Gas Agency in Veldanda village. Acting on this information, Respondent No.2, accompanied by his staff, proceeded to the scene. Upon arrival, they reportedly apprehended two individuals, identified as Bokkala Srisailam and Basunamoni Srisailam. These individuals were allegedly found engaged in playing 3-card games with betting money. The prosecution's narrative further indicated that while these two individuals were caught, eight other persons who were allegedly part of the gaming activity managed to escape from the location.
Following the apprehension, an inquiry was conducted with the two arrested individuals. During this inquiry, they purportedly revealed their details. They also surrendered a sum of Rs. 3,900, two cell phones, and two Honda Shine motorcycles. The investigation did not conclude there. Further investigative steps led to the seizure of an additional sum of Rs. 7,800, a set of 104 plastic playing cards, and a total of six motorcycles. To witness the seizure and the confession allegedly made by the accused, two individuals, Badhepally Mallaiah and Basunamoni Srinu, were summoned as panchas. Subsequently, based on the panchanama prepared, a case was registered at the police station, leading to the initiation of STC.No.811 of 2023.
The petitioner, represented by learned counsel Sri K. Ajith Reddy (appearing on behalf of Smt. V. Sanjana), vehemently contested these allegations and the continuation of the proceedings. The primary argument advanced was that the petitioner had been falsely implicated as Accused No.8 in the case. It was contended that the registration of the crime and the subsequent proceedings amounted to a clear abuse of the process of law. A significant point raised was the alleged deficiency in the charge sheet, which, according to the petitioner's counsel, lacked specific allegations detailing the petitioner's involvement in the purported offence.
Furthermore, the petitioner's counsel stated that the three witnesses cited by the prosecution were all official witnesses, implying a potential lack of independent corroboration. The investigation itself was criticized as having yielded nothing substantial beyond a panchanama that documented a confession allegedly made by co-accused individuals. The petitioner was portrayed as an innocent person with no prior criminal history, suggesting that the current case was an aberration and not indicative of any criminal propensity. The respondents, it was argued, had foisted a false case based on vague and unsubstantiated allegations.
A critical examination of the charge sheet, as per the petitioner's counsel, revealed a complete absence of any overt acts attributed specifically to the petitioner that would link him to the alleged gaming. The entire foundation of the prosecution's case was described as resting on flimsy grounds. The petitioner's personal circumstances were also brought to the court's attention: his livelihood as a private teacher was described as precarious, and he was stated to have significant family responsibilities. The counsel argued that subjecting the petitioner to a trial based on what were termed fabricated charges would inevitably cause irreparable harm not only to him but also to his family members.
Opposing these submissions, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Sri E. Ganesh, appeared on behalf of the respondent State. The State's counsel argued against the quashing of the petition. The prosecution maintained that the scene of the offence was reportedly located behind the Indian Gas Agency. Crucially, the Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that, at this stage of the proceedings, it could not be definitively concluded that the location was not a public street. The argument posited was that the determination of whether the place in question was a public street or a private place was a matter of fact that had to be decided by the trial Court. This, the State argued, could only be done after the adducing of evidence by both the prosecution and the defence during the course of the trial. Therefore, the State's position was that the request for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner was premature and should not be granted. The prayer from the State was for the dismissal of the criminal petition, allowing the trial to proceed. The statutory provision central to the case, Section 9(i) of the T.S. Gaming Act, 2017, deals with penalties for gaming in public streets and other similar places.
The High Court, upon hearing the submissions from both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, and after a careful perusal of the material available on record, proceeded to make its observations. The court first took note of the primary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This contention was recorded by the court as being that "the location in question is neither a public street nor a thoroughfare, nor is it an area of ingress or egress accessible to the public." This argument directly challenged a fundamental requirement for an offence under Section 9(i) of the T.S. Gaming Act.
The court then referred to the prosecution's own description of the alleged scene of the offence. According to the prosecution's case, as noted by the court, "the alleged scene of the offence is situated behind the Indian Gas Agency, specifically within agricultural fields and behind the Indian Gas Godown." This description of the location provided by the prosecution itself became a focal point of the court's analysis regarding its nature as a public or private place.
A significant point observed by the court was the manner in which the case was initiated. The court stated, "It is noteworthy that the charge sheet filed by the police does not contain any allegation that villagers lodged complaints about the alleged gaming activity." This observation stated the absence of any apparent grievance or disturbance reported by the local public due to the alleged gaming. Following this, the court further observed, "Instead, the case was registered suo motu." This indicated that the proceedings were initiated by the law enforcement authorities on their own accord, based on the information they received, rather than in response to a specific complaint from the public regarding any inconvenience or nuisance.
The court then identified the core allegation against the petitioner. It was recorded that, "The main allegation against the petitioner is that the accused were playing a game by betting, for which the case was registered under Section 9(1) of the Gaming Act." Having identified the specific statutory provision, the court found it pertinent to reproduce the section itself.
The judgment then quoted the relevant legal provision, stating, "Section 9(1) of the Gaming Act reads as follows: '9. (1) Whoever 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, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.'" The reproduction of this section laid the groundwork for the court's subsequent interpretation and application of its requirements to the facts of the case.
Based on the plain language of this statutory provision, the court articulated the burden of proof resting upon the police. It observed, "From the above provision, it is evident that when the Police register a case under Section 9(1) of the Gaming Act, they are required to prove that the alleged gaming occurred in a public street, thoroughfare, or a place accessible to the public." This interpretation held that the "public" nature of the location was not merely descriptive but an essential element that the prosecution must affirmatively prove to secure a conviction under this section.
Having laid down this legal requirement, the court then assessed the prosecution's case as presented in the material on record against this benchmark. The critical finding of the court was articulated as follows: "However, the prosecution has not established that the location in question is a public place where inconvenience could be caused to the public."
Flowing from this failure of the prosecution to establish a key ingredient of the offence, the court reached its ultimate conclusion regarding the viability of the proceedings. The court stated, "As such, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of the process of law and the same are liable to be quashed."
The court ordered, "Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed".
"The proceedings against the petitioner in STC.No.811 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, Kalwakurthy, are hereby quashed."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri K. Ajith Reddy, learned counsel representing Smt. V. Sanjana, learned counsel.
For the Respondents: Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
Case Title: Petitioner (Name Not Disclosed in Judgment) vs. The State of Telangana & Anr. Neutral Citation: NA
Case Number: Criminal Petition No.15822 of 2024
Bench: Justice K. Sujana
[Read/Download order]
