TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 1374
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion) Rules, 2010 ('the Rules' for short). On 9.11.2010, Crime No.754 of 2010 was registered at the Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram against Sri.Santiago Martin, Managing Director of MLAL and Sri.John Kennedy, Proprietor, Megha Distributors, Palakkad for the offences under Section 420 read with 34 of IPC, Sections 4(d) and 4(f) read with 7(3) of the Act and Rules 3(5) and 3(17) of the Rules. The crime was registered based on a written complaint received from the Head of the Lottery Monitoring Cell, Kerala State, alleging that the accused, who were the promoters of Sikkim and Bhutan Lotteries, had violated various provisions of the Act and Rules, such as; 1.Not ensuring the authenticity and credibility of the tickets. 2.Not remitting the unclaimed prize money to the Government of Sikkim within the prescribed time. 3.Not printing the lottery tickets in Government Press or High Security Press. and 4.Not remitting the money received by the sale of lottery tickets to the State Public Ledger Account or to the consolidated fund etc. 2. The complaint resulted in 32 crimes being registered at different police stations in the State. Late....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rules, paper lottery tickets and the stationary on which online lottery tickets are issued should be printed by the organising State at the Government Press and/or any other High Security Press included in the panel of the Reserve Bank of India or the Indian Banks Association. Contrary to the stipulation, the paper lottery tickets of Sikkim Government were printed at M/s.Mahalakshmi Offset Printing Press, Sivakasi, which is not a Government Press or a High Security Press included in the panel of the Reserve Bank of India or the Indian Banks Association. Rule 4(5) was alleged to have been violated, by the distributor failing to return the unsold tickets to the organising State with full accounts along with challans of the money deposited in the public ledger account or in the consolidated fund of the organising State. It was alleged that Section 4(d) stood violated by the distributor/sole purchaser failing to remit the entire proceeds from the sale of lottery tickets in Kerala, with the Government of Sikkim. According to the prosecution, the sales bill raised by the Government of Sikkim for the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 and as per the MRP of the tickets sold for the period ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....selling agents shall return the unsold tickets to the Organising States with full accounts along with the challans of the money deposited in the Public Ledger Account or in the Consolidated Fund of the Organising State through the sale of tickets and thereby committed offence punishable section 7(3) of Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998." 4. The petitioner entered appearance in the case and thereafter submitted an application seeking discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. By Annexure A7 order the jurisdictional Magistrate discharged the petitioner of the charges under Sections 4(d) and 4(f) of the Act and Rule 4(5) of the Rules. As regards the offences under Section 9 read with Section 7(3) of the Act, it was held that the question can be considered only at the time of trial and it would be premature to conclude that the Sections are not attracted. Likewise, the question as to whether the offence under Rule 3(5) is attracted or not was also held to be a matter for evidence, to be decided after full fledged trial. 5. Aggrieved by Annexure A7, the petitioner as well as the prosecution preferred revision petitions. By Annexure A13, the learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and all the charges due, as per the invoice raised by the Directorate of Sikkim State Lotteries. It was pointed out that the Government of Sikkim had even refused to give consent for conducting CBI investigation against its officials. It was argued that, going by the prosecution case, the agreements based on which the sale of Sikkim lotteries commenced in Kerala were executed much prior to the constitution of M/s.M.J.Associates, wherein the petitioner figure as a partner with only 49% shares. It is the specific contention of the learned Senior Counsel that there was no material before the court to arrive at a finding of the petitioner being a party to the conspiracy to cheat the Government of Sikkim. 9. Responding to the query of the court as to how the Crl.M.C is maintainable, the original order having been challenged in revision, the learned Senior Counsel argued that the bar under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C against a second revision is not absolute and that under special circumstances, the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, even when a Crl.M.C is filed against an order dismissing a revision filed under Section 397. In support of this proposition, the lear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igh Court is preserved with inherent power and be justified exercising the inherent power in appropriate cases. It was made clear that such power should be exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings. The same view was taken by the Honourable Supreme Court in Shakuntala Devi and Others (supra), the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder; "24. It is well settled that the object of the introduction of sub-section (3) in Section 397 was to prevent a second revision so as to avoid frivolous litigation, but, at the same time, the doors to the High Court to a litigant who had lost before the Sessions Judge were not completely closed and in special cases the bar under Section 397(3) could be lifted. In other words, the power of the High Court to entertain a petition under Section 482, was not subject to the prohibition under sub-section (3) of Section 397 of the Code, and was capable of being invoked in appropriate cases. Mr Sanyal's contention that there was a complete bar under Section 397(3) of the Code debarring the High Court from entertaining an application under Section 482 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t only Rule 3(5) but also Section 4(b). Understood in such manner, the failure of the Legislature to penalise the violation of the Rules as per Section 7(3) is of no avail, as far as the instant case is concerned. 14. 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. 15. I find it difficult to accept the contention. Other than the Government of Sikkim, t....