PURUSHOTHAMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY PSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. The facts, leading up to this petition, are as follows:

(2.) IT was the case of the prosecution that on 14 th July 2007 at about 4.30 p.m. it is alleged that in Kodavoor village at Bapu thota within the jurisdiction of Malpe Police Station, the Police Sub-Inspector, along with the subordinate staff had raided the area and found that the present petitioners were engaged in playing a game of chance known as 'andhar bahar' and they were betting, and therefore, had committed an offence punishable under Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the KP Act", for brevity). It is on this basis they were charge sheeted and since they pleaded not guilty, the prosecution had examined four witnesses PWs 1 to 4 and had marked fourteen exhibits apart from marking three MOs. On the basis of the material produced and the rival contentions, the Trial Court framed the following point for consideration:

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Government Pleader would submit that the petitioners have been identified by the Police Officers and in the light of the tenor of Section 87 of the KP Act even if a person is reasonably suspected to be gaming in any public place, an offence under Section 87 of the KP Act would be made out. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that they were not actually found gaming or betting is not tenable. There is sufficient material seized from the spot, viz. the playing cards and the cash, which would clearly lead not only to suspicion but the actual commission of the offence by the petitioners, and therefore, the contention of the petitioners that since PWs 2 and 3 have turned hostile and if their evidence is eschewed there is no evidence on the part of the prosecution, is not a contention that is acceptable. The evidence of police officers cannot be negated as there is no indication of want of bona fides on the part of the police officers, who are acting in the case through out and the Courts below having been categorically found that the evidence of the said witnesses has not been found to be infirm in any manner, there is no warrant for interference with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.