Absence of Corroborative Evidence Beyond Inadmissible Police Confessions Vitiates Cognizance in Illegal Betting Allegations

In brief

The question

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.

The court held

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.

It also directed

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.

01Facts

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.

p. 1

On 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.

pp. 2-3

The 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.

pp. 4-5

No cricket match was played on the day of the raid due to rain, and no physical lottery tickets were recovered.

p. 5

02Issues

i.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.

p. 26

ii.2. 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).

pp. 27-28

iii.3. Whether the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the Petitioner amounted to an abuse of the process of the court.

p. 30

03Law Applied

The court applied Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS) regarding inherent powers to prevent abuse of process.

p. 13, 30

The 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.

pp. 13-15

Section 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.

p. 12, 26

The court invoked Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, which mandates that confessions made to police officers shall not be proved against the accused.

p. 11, 29

Provisions in the judgment · 10 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 155 Section 156 Section 195 Section 196 Section 482

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 420 Section 505

Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 Section 2 Section 7

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

04Reasoning

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.

p. 25

The court observed that Section 120-B IPC was inapplicable because there was no evidence of a "prior meeting of minds."

p. 27

Regarding 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.

p. 26

Since 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.

pp. 27-28

The 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.

p. 29