Supreme Court of India Judgements

46400 Judgements hosted as on 14/04/2024 - 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

Cr P C

“FIR Quashed! Supreme Court Overturns Charges of Cheating After Finding Insufficient Evidence” – The Court finds that the FIR and charge-sheet, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the ingredients to attract the provision of Section 420 of IPC against the appellant – The Court discusses the principles for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings – The Court allows the appeal, quashing the order of the High Court and the FIR and charge-sheet against the appellant.

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Inherent Powers – Where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code – High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature.

Mar 23, 2024 sclaw
Cr P C

Court directs that police reports must comply with Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C, detailing the investigation’s findings and ensuring all required documents and witness statements are included – Mandatory Compliance – The document underscores the importance of strict adherence to the procedural requirements for police reports, with non-compliance to be viewed seriously by the courts

Mar 23, 2024 sclaw

Leave a Reply

You missed

Arbitration Constitution

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw