✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court · 26 Aug 2010

Chakka Raja Rao @ Raja v. State of A.P

Criminal Petition No. 2675 of 2008K C BHANU2 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the

Key paragraphs

  • Para 66. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.820 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru, insofar as the present petitioner (A1) is concerned. DATED:26-08-2010 Hsd ------------------------------- JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

Judgment

Cause title

State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad …Respondent

-Complainant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2675 OF 2008

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by A1 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.820 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru, which was taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974 (for short ‘the Act’).

2.

It is alleged that A1 and A2 are the life members of one Cosmopolitan Club, Eluru. A3 and A4 are the spectators. On 22- 09-2007 at about 10.00 P.M., police conducted raid on the club and arrested A1 to A4 while they were betting with other persons in relation to cricket match while watching live telecast of semi Finals of India V Australia International Cricket Tournament (20- 20) overs. The confessional-cum- seizure report was got drafted in the presence of panch witnesses and cash of Rs.25,000/-, a Samsung cell phone bearing No.[REDACTED] from A1, cell phones of A2 to A4 and Onida Colour T.V. were seized from the club. Thereafter, police registered a case, investigated into it and filed charge sheet.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is no material to show that the petitioner was involved in the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, that except recovery of some amount and cell phones, there is no other material to show that the petitioner was betting with other persons in relation to cricket matches that was being telecasted and therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of Court.

4.

Under Section 3 of the Act, any person who opens, keeps or uses or permits to be used any common gaming house or conducts or assists in conducting the business of the common gaming house of advances or furnishes money for gaming therein, shall be punishable. Under Section 4 of the Act, whoever is found gaming or present for the purpose of gaming, in a common gaming house shall be punishable

5.

Even if the entire allegations in the charge sheet are taken as true and correct, they do not make out prima facie case of the offences alleged. Except recovery of certain amount and cell phone from the petitioner, there is no material to show that the petitioner (A1) was involved in betting with other persons in relation to cricket match. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the present petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of Court.

Operative part

6.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.820 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru, insofar as the present petitioner (A1) is concerned. DATED:26-08-2010 Hsd ------------------------------- JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974 — ss. 3, 4.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 26 Aug 2010. The bench was K C BHANU.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Criminal Petition No. 2675 of 2008). ← Search more judgments