Facts
The Petitioner challenged an order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the SDJM (Sadar), Cuttack, taking cognizance of offences under Sections 294-A, 420, and 120-B of the IPC, read with Section 7(3) of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998.
Source reference: p. 1On 09.07.2019, police raided Haryana Bhawan based on allegations of illegal betting on Cricket World Cup matches; the Petitioner and two others were apprehended and police seized mobile phones and computer hardware.
Source reference: p. 2-3The Petitioner alleged that the FIR was ante-timed, the seizure lists were prepared suspiciously with pre-filled case numbers, and the formal FIR was later tampered with by hand to include additional seized items.
Source reference: p. 4-5No cricket match was played on the day of the raid due to rain, and no physical lottery tickets were recovered.
Source reference: p. 5Issues
1. Whether the Magistrate could legally take cognizance of the offence under Section 294-A IPC in the absence of government sanction as required under Section 196(2) Cr.P.C.
Source reference: p. 262. Whether the materials on record, including alleged confessions to police, prima facie constituted the ingredients of cheating (S. 420 IPC), criminal conspiracy (S. 120-B IPC), or illegal lottery (S. 7(3) Lotteries Act).
Source reference: p. 27-283. Whether the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the Petitioner amounted to an abuse of the process of the court.
Source reference: p. 30Law Applied
The court applied Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS) regarding inherent powers to prevent abuse of process.
Source reference: p. 13, 30The court relied on the "categories of quashing" established in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, specifically where allegations do not disclose an offence or there is a legal bar to proceedings.
Source reference: p. 13-15Section 196(2) of the Cr.P.C. was applied, which prohibits taking cognizance of a non-cognizable conspiracy (like S. 294-A IPC) without written consent from the State Government or District Magistrate.
Source reference: p. 12, 26The court invoked Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, which mandates that confessions made to police officers shall not be proved against the accused.
Source reference: p. 11, 29Reasoning
The court found significant procedural irregularities, noting "too casual" explanations for hand-written interpolations in the FIR and case diary after they were uploaded to the CCTNS portal.
Source reference: p. 25The court observed that Section 120-B IPC was inapplicable because there was no evidence of a "prior meeting of minds."
Source reference: p. 27Regarding Section 294-A IPC, the court held the cognizance was legally barred due to the lack of requisite sanction under Section 196(2) Cr.P.C.
Source reference: p. 26Since no lottery tickets were found and no witnesses claimed to have been induced to pay money, the essential ingredients for "cheating" and "lottery offences" were missing.
Source reference: p. 27-28The court emphasized that the prosecution relied almost entirely on confessions made to police officers, which are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act and cannot form the sole basis for trial.
Source reference: p. 29Holding
The court held that the allegations, even if accepted, did not constitute the alleged offences and that the SDJM’s order of cognizance was unsustainable as it was both legally barred for lack of sanction and devoid of evidentiary basis.
Exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court quashed the impugned order dated 06.04.2022 as it related to the Petitioner to "secure the ends of justice" and the CRLMC was allowed.
Source reference: p. 30Original Court PDF
ANIL KUMAR SIPANI@ANIL SIPANIvsSTATE OF ODISHA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in