A JOHN KENNEDY PROPRIETOR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 'The King does no wrong' is the age - old adage. But the 'State' can be an exception, at least in the case of running Lotteries, as it appears from the provisions contained in the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998.

(2.) To curb the menace of Lottery Trade in the country, the malpractices thereof and the impact of certain types of Lotteries on poorer sections of the Society, the Parliament enacted the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 (Act 17 of 1998). By virtue of S.3, it is stipulated that no State Government shall organise, conduct or promote any Lottery, save as otherwise provided in S.4, specifying the conditions. S.5 enables a State Government to prohibit the sale of tickets of a Lottery organised, conducted or promoted by every other State. As per S.6, the Central Government is empowered to prohibit any Lottery organised, conducted or promoted in contravention of the provisions of S.4 or where tickets of such Lottery are sold in contravention of the provisions of S.5. The penalty provision, particularly sub-section (1) of S.7, is in respect of the penalty to be imposed on violation of the provisions of the Act, upon the Head of the Department, if the violation is by any Department of the State Government and sub-section (2) enables to proceed against such other officer of the Department as well, if he is also involved, to the extent as specified therein. When sub-sections (1) and (2) deal with proceedings against the 'officers of the Government' as aforesaid, sub-section (3) provides for proceeding against 'any person' who acts as an agent or promoter or trader in any Lottery organised, conducted or promoted in contravention of the provisions of the Act or sells, distributes or purchases the tickets of such Lottery. S.8 makes it clear that the offences under the Act shall be 'cognizable' and 'non bailable' and S.9 deals with the offences by Companies. Thus, going by the scheme of the Statute, it is very obvious that it was enacted by the Government of India, 'mainly to protect the poor people of the country' who get attracted to the tempting torch lit by the organisers / conductors / promoters of the Lottery and burn their lives, besides ruining their families and 'not as a measure for augmentation of the revenue' of the State. The issue involved in the present case, as to the relative rights and liabilities to pay / accept the tax under the Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Act, 2005 has to be examined in this broad spectrum.

(3.) Coming to the case in hand, the 'interim relief prayed for, under prayer 'A' is as follows: