The Allahabad High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated in connection with allegations of gambling at a public place, clearly holding that an offence registered under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 is a cognizable offence, in which the police are empowered to arrest without warrant and conduct investigation.
The order was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, dismissing the petition filed by Kamran.
The Court clarified the legal position by observing that “in a case of cognizable offences, a police officer may arrest any person without warrant, whereas in non-cognizable offence a police officer has no right to arrest without warrant……………”
It was further held that since Section 13 itself authorises the police to arrest without warrant, an offence under the said provision cannot be treated as non-cognizable. Consequently, prior permission of the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not required for investigation in such cases.
According to the facts of the case, on 8 December 2019, the accused were apprehended by the police while playing cards in a park within the limits of Police Station Sikandara, Agra, and an amount of ₹750 was recovered from their possession. The police thereafter submitted a chargesheet under Section 13 of the Gambling Act, upon which the Magistrate took cognizance.
On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued that in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the maximum punishment for a first offence under Section 13 is one month’s imprisonment, and therefore the offence should be treated as non-cognizable.
It was further contended that the investigation conducted without prior permission of the Magistrate was illegal. Reliance was placed on earlier decisions of the High Court wherein proceedings under Sections 3/4 of the Public Gambling Act were quashed on the ground that those offences were non-cognizable and investigation without permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. was barred.
Rejecting the said contention, the Court held that Sections 3/4 and Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act operate in different fields and are of a distinct nature. The Court categorically observed:
“The facts of the aforesaid judgments are not similar to the facts of the present case. The FIR may be registered under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act and the police has authority to register the FIR and investigate the matter and the learned Magistrate did not commit any illegality or irregularity in taking cognizance of offence on police report.”
Accordingly, the Court held that the application was devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
However, keeping in view the minor nature of punishment prescribed for the offence, the High Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.
Case: Kamran vs State of U.P. and Another
