9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (8) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from one Pappa stating that she was the purchaser of the prize winning ticket but that she lost it. On 9-8-1977 the petitioner in W. P. No. 1384 of 1984, Gnanavelan (hereinafter referred to as the first petitioner) claimed the amount from the Director of Raffles and produced a ticket bearing the number above quoted. On 1-3-1977 the petitioner in W. P. No. 3635 of 1984, C. Subramaiam (herein after referred to as second petitioner) made a similar claim It is worth noting that all the three claimants declared having purchased their ticket from one Meenakshi of Madurai. 4. On 18-8-1977 Pappa sent a regular petition to the Director of Raffles stating that in spite of her efforts she was not able to trace her ticket and requested the Director of Raffles to refer the matter to the Government and in the menawhile not to pay to any other claimant. On 22-8-1978 she instituted a suit before the City Civil Court, Madras, subsequently withdrawn to the High Court, in which she prayed for payment of the prize money to her and for an injunction to the Director of Raffles not to pay it to any other person. On 6-9-1977 the first petitioner, who was in possession of a prize winning ticket, got hims ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e torn edges being physically fitted as in other parts of the torn edges of the raffle ticket and (2) In respect of the ticket of the first petitioner, there is slight variation in the distance between the holes made by wire stitching in the Raffle ticket bearing the marking Q. 2 from the specimen raffle ticket similarly stamped and marked S. 1. The figures "2' in the red enclosed number '275522' stamped and marked 'Q2' on the raffle ticket in the second and sixth digits are slightly smaller in breadth and the shape of the curve at the tip portion vary on a comparison with the specimen figures "2' in the numbers stamped and marked S. 21. Similarly, the shape of the downward stroke in figure 7 in the fifth digit of the red enclosed number '275522' stamped and marked Q2 varies from the shape of the downward stroke of figures '7' in the specimen numbers stamped and marked S. 1". 6. On 5-4-1978 the Superintendent of Police forwarded to the Director Stationery & Printing, Government Press, Madras, the ticket produced by the first petitioner along with the report of the Forensic Laboratory and requesting him to offer opinion as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aily, "Andhra Prabha" published photographs of such a ticket, that a press note was issued requesting the general public to surrender all such defective tickets in their possession and in the tickets so surrendered the following defects were noticed the serial number of the ticket not printed but written in ink, serial number without series letter; ticket without any number. On account of those defects the draw was postponed to 9-11-1977. 9. In the criminal case against the first petitioner, namely C. C. No. 15940 of 1978, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses and filed 25 exhibits. On 30-5-1982 the Second Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, convicted the first petitioner for offences under Ss. 430 read with 511, Penal Code and 471 read with 467, Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months. The first petitioner appealed against the conviction and sentence before the Court of Session, Madras and in that appeal, C. A. No. 207 of 1982, two witnesses, viz., the Expert from the Forensic Science Laboratory and the Works Manager, Government Press, were re-examined and seven more exhibits were filed by the prosecution. The accused (first peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the ticket. If during verification it is found that the ticket is genuine, the prize amount due shall be disbursed. 'The claim shall be rejected if the genuineness of the ticket cannot be established. In such cases, the decision of the Director of Tamil Nadu Raffle shall be final and binding". It is obvious from a plain reading of the orders that the Director of Raffles has failed to give the reasons for rejecting the tickets while exercising his powers under R. 36-h and that these cursory orders are untenable. The learned Government pleader conceded that the orders in their present form cannot stand but suggested to refer the matter again to the Director of Raffles for proper disposal after setting aside the present orders. The petitioners contended on the contrary that after the findings of the criminal Courts nothing remained to be decided, that the Director of Raffles had no jurisdiction to give any finding, that he had no discretion to exercise, that the order to be passed is only towards effecting the payment and they, therefore, prayed this Court to issue direction to that effect. 14. There is some force in the contentions of the petitioners. If orders have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that event happened before the order of any Road Transport Tribunal, then such Tribunal would not have the power to go behind the final order of a competent criminal Court. If at the time the Road Transport Tribunal disposes of any application or before such tribunal passes an order no prosecution has been launched, then of course it is not incumbent on the tribunal to await a criminal prosecution. But if a prosecution is in respect of the same offence by reason of which the Transport Authority proposes to take drastic action against the accused in the criminal case, then, it is desirable that the transport authority should await the decision of the criminal court. This procedure would avoid the spectacle of two departments of the Government proceeding on contradictory lines to the annoyance and hardship of the citizen". The Supreme Court had occasion to consider the same issue in Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab in which the court quoted with approval and applied the observations of Lord MacDermott at page 479 in Sambasivam v. Public Prosecutor, Federation of Malaya, 1950 A. C. 458 (A):- "The effect of a verdict of acquittal pronounced by a competent court on a lawf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the court itself has left the issue open to doubt, or has disposed of the case on technical ground without giving a finding on merits the matter may be examined afresh in a subsequent proceeding. 17. We are at a loss to understand the hesitation of the concerned authorities, who are certainly quite aware of the position of law, to accept the verdict of the forum they have deliberately chosen among others. This shows only that the gravity of the criminal proceedings is lost sight of and discloses scant consideration for a finding of the criminal court. The criminal proceeding is not a weapon to be brandished and used in all circumstances. A poor man for the only sin of purchasing a ticket of a lottery organised by the State should not be driven into accused's box light heartedly. Further, if the spectre of criminal prosecution is allowed to haunt the minds of the prospective purchasers of the ticket that would have a deterring effect and bring down the yield expected from the raffles and defeat the very purpose of the scheme. 18. To sum up, a criminal proceeding by its very nature is an extremely grave one. Recourse to it should be made with the greatest care, caution and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayment due but consists instead of plugging the loopholes in the functioning of the system. Alluring amounts in this highly speculative venture are bound to raise temptations from various quarters and at different levels. In built safety measures in the ticket issuing machinery are essential to avoid duplication, and pilferage. Fool-proof devices are necessary to check up counterfetings. The facts disclosed in the criminal investigations and trials point out that much remains to be done in these fields. Whatever may be the position, the law requires that when a ticket is presented and that is found to be genuine the prize promised has to be disbursed irrespective of any earlier payment for any other ticket bearing the same number. 20. We shall now advert to the reliefs that can be awarded to the parties, in these cases. The first petitioner R. Gnanavelan was found by the Principal Sessions Judge, Madras in C. A. No. 270 of 1982 to be an innocent person and he was set at liberty. This finding is final and binding upon the respondents I to 3 in W. P. No. 1384 of 1984. He is entitled to the prize amount. Since the amount has been already deposited into court as per the request of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
