The High Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed proceedings under the Karnataka Police Act, IT Act, and IPC regarding IPL betting. Relying on a coordinate bench, the court held betting is not 'gaming' under the Act and match fixing does not constitute cheating.
The criminal petition was allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.165/2021 were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5827 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SRI SATHISH S/O ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT KURUBARA PETE HOSAKOTE – 562 114.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KRISHNAMOORTHY D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.165/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
2
AND JMFC AT HOSAKOTE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.79 OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, SEC.66(D) OF THE I.T ACT AND SEC.34 AND 420 OF THE IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Crime No.165/2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 79 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 420 and 34 of the IPC, 1860, pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote, Bengaluru Rural. Petitioner is accused No.4.
The case of the prosecution is that, on 26.04.2021, at about 9.30 a.m., C.M.Raju, PSI - the complainant received a credible information that within the jurisdiction of Hosakote Police Station, three individuals were indulged in playing IPL cricket betting. They were also booking betting for future
3
matches about the winning and losing possibilities of various team and used an APP / Website by name JUNGLE BET.COM, to check the betting ratio and used mobile phones. They used WhatsApp to contact the customers, Google Pe, Phone Pe to transfer money to bank accounts and conduct gambling, involving money transaction to deceive general public. After which, FIR came to be registered for the offences as aforequoted.
appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
4
the respondents would accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
10.01.2022, has held as follows:
“8. I have considered the arguments. Firstly, one point of argument regarding registration of an FIR is to be dealt with. All the counsel for the petitioners have fussed over this aspect. It is true that the second respondent made a report to the Cubbon Park police for registration of FIR on the basis of information that he gathered while interrogating a player in connection with Crime No. 124/2019. It appears that the information the second respondent gathered is in the form of confession of an accused and this is the reason for taking strong objection for registration of FIR in Crime No. 197/2019 which has given rise to charge sheet in the case on hand. Of course there is substance in the argument that the confession statement of an accused given before the police cannot be referred to in view of bar contained in section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. But, the said bar is to the extent of proving the confession against the accused who made it, there is no prohibition as such to make use of any information that a police officer comes to know for the first time regarding a crime which might have taken place in the past and not detected till then, while interrogating an accused in connection with another case of crime. Supposing that an accused himself goes to police station and gives information about the offence committed by him, the police in such a circumstance can very well
5
register an FIR and this proposition is well established [Faddi vs State of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1964 SC 1850) and Aghnoo Nagesia vs State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 119)] . If this is the position, why a statement given by a co-accused regarding another crime cannot be made use of for registration of FIR. In fact many incidents of theft, robbery or dacoity come to light only during such interrogations. It may be stated further that such statement can be made use of only for the limited purpose of registration of FIR and it cannot be used for proving it against an accused. Registration of FIR is not the end in itself and it is not a substantive piece of evidence also. Mere registration of FIR in this manner does not lead to convicting an accused, investigator has to collect independent evidence and further the prosecution must be able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore the entire argument that statement of a co-accused during interrogation in connection with some other crime cannot form basis for registration of FIR is totally unfounded.
9. Regarding the argument of Sri Hashmath Pasha that statement recorded by respondent No.2 during investigation in Crime No. 124/2019 has not been produced, it is to be stated that production of such a statement is not necessary. FIR is to be registered based on the information relating to commission of a cognizable offence. According to respondent No.2 he collected that information during interrogation in Crime No. 124/2019. It was a confessional statement of an accused and it forms part of the record in Crime No. 124/2019. While a copy of that statement could have been produced along with report made by respondent No.2 to the Cubbon Park police, its non-production has least effect for, even if it is produced, it cannot be proved against the accused in the present case. The report of respondent No.2 shows information that he
6
collected regarding match fixing for the KPL matches of the season 2019 and this much of information can certainly be basis for registration of FIR if really an offence has been committed. Therefore this argument is also not acceptable.
10. However, the other common point urged by all the counsel is worth acceptance. According to the prosecution match fixing amounts to cheating and therefore the offence under section 420 IPC has been invoked in the charge sheet. For invoking offence under section 420 IPC, the essential ingredients to be present are deception, dishonest inducement of a person to deliver any property or to alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security. It was argued by Sri Dhyan Chinnappa that the cricket lovers go to watch the match by buying tickets and thereby they are induced to part with their property, i.e., their money. Of course money is a property, but his argument that they are induced to buy tickets cannot be accepted. They may have a feeling that they are going to witness a fair game being played, but, they buy the tickets voluntarily. So, question of inducement to buy ticket can be ruled out.
11. It is true that if a player indulges in match fixing, a general feeling will arise that he has cheated the lovers of the game. But, this general feeling does not give rise to an offence. The match fixing may indicate dishonesty, indiscipline and mental corruption of a player and for this purpose the BCCI is the authority to initiate disciplinary action. If the bye-laws of the BCCI provide for initiation of disciplinary action against a player, such an action is permitted but, registration of an FIR on the ground that a crime punishable under section 420 IPC has been committed, is not permitted. Even if the entire charge sheet averments are taken to be true on their face value, they do not constitute an offence.
7
12. One of the petitioners is a bookie said to have involved in betting. Sri Hashmath Pasha has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket vs Cricket Association of Bihar and Others [2016 (8) SCC 535] where it is observed that betting is to be legalized. It was argued by the respondent that betting amounts to gaming which is an offence under the Karnataka Police Act. If section 2(7) of Karnataka Police Act is seen, its explanation very clearly says that game of chance does not include any athletic game or sport. Cricket is a sport and therefore even if betting takes place, it cannot be brought within the ambit of definition of ‘gaming’ found in Karnataka Police Act.
13. Sri Dhyan Chinnappa argued that section 120B of IPC is an independent offence and therefore notwithstanding the fact that ingredients for section 420 IPC can be said to be not there for argument sake, still the accused can be prosecuted for offence under 120B and in this regard he has placed reliance on the judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this court in the case of Sachin Narayan vs Income Tax Department and Another (W.P.5299/2019 and connected writ petitions ). There is no second word with regard to his argument that section 120B is an independent offence but, to invoke this offence of conspiracy, as has been argued by Sri Hashmath Pasha, the allegations found in the charge sheet must constitute an offence in connection with which conspiracy is alleged. As discussed above, the allegations found in the charge sheet do not constitute an offence under section 420 IPC and therefore offence under section 120B cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances. Therefore the argument of Sri Dhyan Chinnappa cannot be accepted.
8
14. From the foregoing discussion, I come to conclusion that all these petitions deserve to be allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.2939/2020 on the file of I ACMM, Bengaluru, are quashed.”
In light of the afore-extracted order, the issue in the case at hand covers on all its fours. Therefore, I deem it appropriate obliterate the proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
ORDER
(ii) The proceedings in Crime No.165/2021, pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote, Bengaluru Rural, stand quashed.
Sd/JUDGE
nvj CT:MJ
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner shall be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in view of a coordinate bench order regarding IPL betting.
Whether betting constitutes gaming punishable under Section 79 of the Karnataka Police Act.
Whether match fixing constitutes an offence under Section 420 of the IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Faddi vs State of Madhya PradeshReferred¶34
Faddi vs State of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1964 SC 1850) · Who else cites this
Aghnoo Nagesia vs State of BiharReferred¶34
Aghnoo Nagesia vs State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 119) · Who else cites this
Board of Control for Cricket vs Cricket Association of Bihar and OthersReferred¶43
Board of Control for Cricket vs Cricket Association of Bihar and Others [2016 (8) SCC 535] · Who else cites this
Sachin Narayan vs Income Tax Department and AnotherDistinguished¶43
Sachin Narayan vs Income Tax Department and Another (W.P.5299/2019 and connected writ petitions)
CRL.P.NO.2929/2020 AND CONNECTED MATTERSFollowed¶28
CRL.P.NO.2929/2020 AND CONNECTED MATTERS D.D. ON 10.01.2022
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Sri Sathish
State of Karnataka
Mr. C.M. Raju
M. Nagaprasanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
