2021 (2) TMI 1374 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal dismissed against framing charges under Section 420 IPC for lottery case despite government clarification

Kerala HC dismissed the petitioner's appeal challenging framing of charges under Section 420 IPC in a lottery case. The court held that despite the ... Framing of charges - Whether 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)? - HELD THAT:- The learned Sessions Judge rightly found the trial court to have committed a mistake by holding that the charge does not mention the offence under Section 420 IPC. The first charge, which is general to all the accused, include the offence under Section 420. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that the Government of Sikkim having clarified that the amounts due to it has been paid by the accused and having issued Annexure A15, stating that there are no dues from the distributor and having even refused to grant consent to the CBI to conduct investigation against its officials, the offence under Section 420 will not be attracted. It is contended that the person 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 the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Alleged violations of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 and Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2010.2. Criminal conspiracy to cheat the Government of Sikkim.3. The legality of charges under Sections 420 and 120B IPC.4. The maintainability of a second revision under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.5. The exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Alleged Violations of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 and Rules, 2010:The petitioner, identified as the 5th accused, was implicated in a case involving violations of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 and the Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2010. The allegations included:- Not ensuring the authenticity and credibility of the tickets.- Not remitting unclaimed prize money to the Government of Sikkim within the prescribed time.- Not printing the lottery tickets in a Government Press or High Security Press.- Not remitting the money received from the sale of lottery tickets to the State Public Ledger Account or the consolidated fund.The court noted that the agreements between MLAL and the Government of Sikkim were allegedly designed to provide unlawful gain to MLAL and consequent loss to the Government of Sikkim. The petitioner was accused of joining the conspiracy in December 2007 and forming a partnership firm named M/s.M.J.Associates for the sale of Sikkim and Bhutan lottery tickets.2. Criminal Conspiracy to Cheat the Government of Sikkim:The prosecution alleged a criminal conspiracy among Santiago Martin, MLAL, and unknown officials of the Sikkim Government to cheat the Government of Sikkim. The agreements were purportedly structured to favor MLAL, resulting in significant financial discrepancies. For instance, M/s.Future Gaming Solutions India Private Limited remitted only Rs.142.93 crores against the sales bill of Rs.4,970.42 crores.3. The Legality of Charges under Sections 420 and 120B IPC:The petitioner challenged the framing of charges under Section 420 IPC, arguing that the Government of Sikkim had no complaint of being cheated. However, the court held that the public, who purchased the tickets believing in the legitimacy of the lottery, were deceived. Thus, the offence under Section 420 IPC was attracted irrespective of the Government of Sikkim's stance.4. The Maintainability of a Second Revision under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.:The court examined whether the Crl.M.C was maintainable, given the bar under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C against a second revision. Citing precedents, the court acknowledged that in special circumstances, the High Court could exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, even if a second revision was generally barred.5. The Exercise of Inherent Jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C:The court considered whether the case warranted the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to prevent abuse of process. It concluded that there were no special circumstances compelling the court to entertain a second revision and grant relief.Conclusion:The court dismissed the Crl.M.C, upholding the charges against the petitioner under the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, the Rules, and the Indian Penal Code. It emphasized that the public, as major stakeholders, were deceived by the alleged violations, justifying the charges under Section 420 IPC. The court found no compelling reason to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to intervene in the lower courts' decisions.