Supreme Court of India Judgements

46670 Judgements hosted as on 9/12/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Cr P C

(CrPC) – Sections 107 and 360 – Karnataka Police Act, 1963 – Section 80 – Gambling – Benefit of probation – Appellant is directed to be released on probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. on entering into bond and two sureties each to ensure that he will maintain peace and good behaviour for the duration of his sentence, failing which he can be called upon to serve the sentence.

Bysclaw

May 16, 2023

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIVISION BENCH

SOORI @ T.V. SURESH — Appellant

Vs.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent

( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )

Criminal Appeal No. 1463 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No. 2958 of 2023)

Decided on : 15-05-2023

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 107 and 360 – Karnataka Police Act, 1963 – Section 80 – Gambling – Benefit of probation – Incident pertains to the year 2007, when the appellant was about 31 years of age and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month – As per the information furnished by the learned counsel for the State, the appellant has never indulged in any case of gambling, though there were some cases under Section 107 CrPC – Appellant deserves to be granted the benefit of probation – Appellant is directed to be released on probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. on entering into bond and two sureties each to ensure that he will maintain peace and good behaviour for the duration of his sentence, failing which he can be called upon to serve the sentence.

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J. – The appellant having been convicted under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short, the 1963 Act) has filed the present appeal. Notice in the appeal was issued on 27.02.2023 limited to the extent of consideration as to whether the appellant can be granted benefit of probation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that FIR dated 16.8.2007 was registered against 24 accused persons including the appellant under sections 79 and 80 of the 1963 Act as they were found to be indulging in gambling. The charge sheet was filed and the Trial Court vide order dated 21.8.2007 convicted them under Section 79 & 80 of the 1963 Act and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year each under both the provisions along with a fine of Rs. 600/- after the accused had pleaded guilty. At that stage, the accused filed affidavits before the Trial Court undertaking that they will not commit such offence in future and taking note of that, the Trial Court sentenced the accused to imprisonment till the rising of the Court.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the State preferred appeal against accused no. 1 to 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore, vide order dated 3.05.2010, allowed the appeal against the accused no.1, the appellant, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month and imposed a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 80 the 1963 Act. He, however, was acquitted for offence under Section 79 of the 1963 Act. No order was passed against other accused as they could not be served. The order of the first Appellate Court was challenged before the High Court by filing Criminal Revision Petition No. 900 of 2013 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.07.2022.

4. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant is that the appellant is not a habitual offender. He has not indulged in any such activity after the involvement in the case in hand. There are no other cases pending against him. He may be given the benefit of probation.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent State submitted that the appellant was involved in a serious offence of gambling at public place and was involved in cases pertaining to Section 107 CrPC. Subsequently, he does not deserve the benefit of probation.

6. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

7. The incident pertains to the year 2007, when the appellant was about 31 years of age and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. As per the information furnished by the learned counsel for the State, the appellant has never indulged in any case of gambling, though there were some cases under Section 107 CrPC. In our opinion, the appellant deserves to be granted the benefit of probation.

8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. The appellant is directed to be released on probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. on entering into bond and two sureties each to ensure that he will maintain peace and good behaviour for the duration of his sentence, failing which he can be called upon to serve the sentence.

By sclaw

Related Post

Additional Accused Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 319 — The court can exercise power under section 319 CrPC even on the basis of examination-in-chief, which is part of the evidence.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Cr P C I P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of Criminal Proceedings under Section 482 in Cases with Predominantly Civil Character — The court reiterated the principle that criminal cases with overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions, matrimonial relationships, or family disputes, should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves — This principle is applied in the present case, where the dispute involved a loan transaction between the accused persons and the bank, and the parties had settled the matter through the One Time Settlement (OTS).

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 311, 313 and 173(8) — Case of Murder — Further investigation after the trial had concluded —Whether the High Court was justified in ordering further investigation after the trial had concluded —The appellant argued that the application for further investigation was a disguised attempt to reopen earlier proceedings and that the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain such an application after charges were framed —The respondent contended that further investigation was necessary to ensure justice and that new facts and material had emerged —The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order for further investigation, stating it was unwarranted and not in accordance with the law —The Court found that the application for further investigation was filed too late and lacked new evidence that would justify reopening the case —The Court emphasized that further investigation should be ordered sparingly and only in exceptional cases to achieve the ends of justice — The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, dismissed the application for further investigation.

Oct 2, 2024 sclaw

Leave a Reply

You missed

Constitution Service

Classification of Military casualties and the eligibility for Liberalised Family Pension — Battle Casualty —Illness Caused by Extreme Climatic Conditions as Battle Casualty — The Court establishes that a soldier’s death due to illness resulting from extreme climatic conditions while on duty near a sensitive border area (such as the Line of Control) can be categorized as a ‘Battle Casualty’ — This expands the interpretation of what constitutes a battle casualty under military regulations. – Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) — Application of Category E (f) — The judgment clarifies that deaths occurring in war-like situations, including those near international borders or lines of control due to environmental stresses, fall under clause (f) of category E of the relevant military order — This broadens the scope of eligibility for LFP under such circumstances.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 384, 364, 302 and 201 — Murder — Circumstantial Evidence — The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges as the prosecution failed to prove the crucial link of the accused’s disclosure leading to the discovery of skeletal remains under Section 27 and the DNA evidence was also found to be inconclusive due to lack of proper collection of samples. – Proof of Disclosure Statements under Section 27 — Voluntariness and Uninfluenced Nature — The Court reiterates that the information provided by an accused under Section 27 must be voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress, or coercion.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 25, 54 and 59 — Buttondar knife — Specific Intent Required — The court clarifies that mere possession of a knife covered by a notification like the DAD Notification is not sufficient to constitute an offense under the Arms Act — There must be specific intent to use it for the prohibited purposes such as “manufacture, sale, or possession for sale or test.” – The prosecution must clearly allege and prove the intent of the accused to use the weapon for the specified prohibited purposes — Absence of such allegation in the charge-sheet renders the proceedings defective.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw