N. JAYAMURUGAN Vs. ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) Petitioner is the fifth accused in C.C. No. 218/2015 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrates Court, Ernakulam which arose from the final report filed by the CBI alleging offences under Ss. 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Ss. 4(d), 4(f) and 9 read with 7(3) of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, for short LR Act and Rules 3(5) and 4(5) of the Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2010, for short LR Rules. The petitioner is the partner of M/s. M.J. Associates, Palakkad. At the instance of the State of Kerala, 32 crimes were registered against accused persons including the petitioner in different police stations. Later, investigation of all the crimes were handed over to the CBI at the instance of the State. After investigation, the CBI referred 23 crimes, a compiled final report was laid in seven crimes from which C.C. No. 218/2015 arose. Investigation is yet to conclude in the remaining two crimes.

(3.) According to the petitioner, on 6/8/1999 by an agreement, the Government of Sikkim had appointed M/s. Martin Lottery Agencies Limited, re-named as M/s. Future Gaming Hotels and Services India Private Limited, presently known as M/s. Future Gaming Solutions India Private Limited, as the distributor to market and sell lottery tickets organized, conducted or promoted by the Government of Sikkim. The agreement was periodically extended till 17/10/2014. The Sikkim Government is the organizing State as provided under Rule 2(f) of the LR Rules and M/s. Future Gaming Solutions India Private Limited falls under the definition of distributor or selling agent under the Rules. M/s. Megha Distributor was registered as a promoter under the Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Rules, 2005 and they were liable to pay tax on lotteries in the State of Kerala as per Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Act. M/s. Megha Distributor was the Kerala stockist of Sikkim lotteries. The petitioner entered into a partnership agreement on 14/12/2017 with Mr. Martin and formed a partnership firm by name M/s. M.J. Associates. An agreement was entered into between M/s. Megha Distributor and M/s. M.J. Associates by which M/s. M.J. Associates was appointed as the sole stockist of the lottery tickets in Kerala. M/s. M.J. Associates was only purchasing lottery tickets from M/s. Megha Distributor which was the registered promoter and they in-turn were selling lottery tickets through 73 stockists in Kerala. The flow chart in the writ petition indicates that the Sikkim Government, the organising State had appointed M/s. Martin Lottery Agencies as the distributor who in-turn entered into an agreement with M/s. Megha Distributor, the promoter in Kerala; between M/s. Megha Distributor and M/s. M.J.Associates, an agreement was executed on 15/12/2007 by which M/s. M.J. Associates was appointed as the sole stockist in Kerala. The latter was only purchasing lottery tickets from M/s. Megha Distributor and was selling the tickets through 73 stockists who distributed lotteries through sub stockists and then given to road side vendors and retail shops. While so, some dispute arose between the partners of M/s. M.J. Associates and the petitioner, thereafter, he had not involved in any sale of Sikkim lotteries in Kerala. From 14/6/2010 to 31/8/2010 the sale of lottery tickets in Kerala was done directly by M/s.Megha Distributor and legal proceedings were initiated by the petitioner against Mr. Martin, M/s.Future Gaming Solutions India Private Limited and M/s. Megha Distributor. Alleging that there is conspiracy among the petitioner and other accused persons and thereby defalcated large sum of money, the said final report was laid in which charge No. 1 is a general charge setting out criminal conspiracy between the petitioner and M/s. Martin Lottery Agencies Limited. According to him, no allegation of cheating punishable under Sec. 420 of the IPC has been made against the petitioner. The other specific charge against the petitioner is in charge No. 8 where he had allegedly committed offence punishable under Sec. 120B of the IPC besides under Ss. 4(d) and 4(f), 9 read with 7(3) of the LR Act and Rules 3(5) and 4(5) of the LR Rules.