9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alleged to have been deceived being the Government of Sikkim, the petitioner cannot be proceeded against for the offence of cheating, in the absence of a complaint in that regard from the Government of Sikkim. Other than the Government of Sikkim, the Government of Kerala and the accused, the major stakeholders are the public who have purchased the tickets under the belief that the lottery was being conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. By conducting the lottery in violation of the provisions, the public, who spent money for purchasing the lottery tickets, was deceived. Therefore, irrespective of the fact that the Government of Sikkim has no complaint, the offence under Section 420 is attracted. Moreover, if during the course of trial, it is found that the officials with the Government of Sikkim are also part of the conspiracy, the trial court can exercise its power under Section 319 to proceed against those persons also. The substantial contentions urged by the learned Senior Counsel having been answered, there is no special circumstance in this case which compels this Court to entertain a second revision and grant relief, in exercise of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in 7 cases. The allegation regarding non-ensuring of the authenticity and credibility of the tickets, by printing the seal and logo of the State on the lottery tickets, was found to be wrong and the final report was filed with the following allegations; After being selected as the sole distributor for Sikkim Lotteries, a criminal conspiracy was hatched among Sri.Santiago Martin (A1), MLAL and unknown officials of Sikkim Government, for obtaining unlawful gain to Santiago Martin and MLAL, by cheating the Government of Sikkim, by violating various provisions of the Act. With this objective, an agreement was entered into between Santiago Martin, MLAL and the Government of Sikkim to entrust Sikkim Lottery Tickets to MLAL as the sole distributor for various states, including Kerala, for a period of three years from 6.8.1999 to 5.8.2002. Many of the clauses in the agreement were worded with intent to provide unlawful gain to MLAL and consequent loss to the Government of Sikkim. A second agreement, for a period of five years from 9.4.2001 to 8.4.2006, was entered into on 17.2.2001 and a third agreement for five years, on 6.10.2004, which was extended by another five years. An amendment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant portion of Charge-1 of the final report reads as under; "Thus the accused persons A-1 to A-7 by way of non remittance of sale proceeds to the Sikkim Government, non remittance of unclaimed/undisbursed prize money back to the Sikkim Government, printing of Sikkim Lottery tickets from a non security press not empanelled by RBI/IBA, not returning the unsold tickets back to the Sikkim Government, not returning undisbursed prize amounts to the Sikkim Government and manipulation of data showing unsold prize winning tickets as sold and claiming the same from Sikkim Government, and cheating the Government of Sikkim by entering into an agreement containing covenants contrary to the LR Act and Rules and thus deceived the Sikkim Government in not receiving the full sale proceeds of the lottery tickets and A-1 by practically conducting the Sikkim Govt. Lotteries in the name of M/s.FGSIPL, committed the offence punishable U/s.120B, 420 IPC r/w Section 4(d), 4(f), 7(3), 9 of Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 and 3(5), 4(5) of Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2010." 3. Charge-8, being the specific charge against the petitioner, is extracted here under; "That A-5 Shri N Jayamurugan, Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 120B IPC, charge ought to be framed for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC also. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the finding that charge has to be framed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 3(5) read with Sections 9 and 7(3) of the Act on the ground that Section 7 of the Act, which is the penal provision, does not make contravention of the provisions of the Rules punishable. Attention was drawn to Section 7(1), which reads as under; "7. Penalty.- (1) Where a lottery is organised, conducted or promoted after the date on which this Act receives the assent of the President, in contravention of the provisions of this Act, by any Department of the State Government, the Head of the Department shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both; Provided that nothing contained in this section shall render such Head of the Department liable to any punishment if he proves that the contravention was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such contravention." 7. It is submitted that in view of the settled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r liable to be charged for the offences Act, the Rules and the Indian Penal Code, interest of justice demands that this Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of process of court. 11. The learned Standing Counsel for the CBI contended that the scope of interference against an order dismissing an application for discharge is minimal. According to the learned counsel, all that the trial court was required to consider was whether the materials submitted by the prosecution along with the final report were sufficient to create grave suspicion of the accused having committed the alleged offences. The trial court having arrived at such finding, which is affirmed by the revisional court, there is no reason for this Court to entertain the Crl.M.C, particularly when it amounts to a second revision. It was contended that this Court cannot be called upon to decide matters which the trial court should decide on the basis of evidence adduced before it. 12. Section 397(3) Cr.P.C interdicts the entertainment of further application by a person who has already filed a revision under Section 397 either to the High Court or the Sessions Court. In Krishnan and Another (supra), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther the instant case can be termed as an appropriate case and the further proceedings against the petitioner to be an abuse of process of court, warranting interference under Section 482, despite the bar under Section 397(3). In order to answer the question, this Court has to consider the contentions put forth by the learned Senior Counsel. The first contention is that the Act does not provide for penalising a person for violation of the Rules. Section 7(3), which is relied on for this purpose, is extracted hereunder; 7.Penalty.- (1) xx xx (2) xx xx (3) If any person acts as an agent or promoter or trader in any lottery organised conducted or promoted in contravention of the provisions of this Act or sells, distributes or purchases the ticket of such lottery, he shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both." Even though at the first brush the argument is impressive, one cannot view Section 7(3) in isolation. Section 3 of the Act prohibits the State Governments from organising, conducting or promoting any lottery except in the manner provided in Section 4, which prescribes the conditions subject to wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
