(1.) Inspector of Police, Puttur Circle, laid a charge-sheet against the petitioners under Sections 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act, 1974 (for short - 'the Act'), for their gambling in a premise where Puttur Recreation and Cultural Association is housed. This petition is filed to quash the said charge-sheet.
(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for petitioners is that petitioners are members of Puttur Recreation and Cultural Association, registered under the Societies Registration Act, with an object of promoting sports and games among youth and middle aged people etc., and when police started interfering with their lawful activities, they filed W.P.No.16292 of 2003 seeking a direction restraining the police from interfering with their lawful activities in the Club and had also filed O.S. No.116 of 2004 seeking an injunction restraining the police from interfering with the lawful activities in the Club and so police, feeling aggrieved by their filing a writ petition and suit had, with a view to harass and humiliate the petitioners falsely implicated them in this case. It is his contention that inasmuch as the procedure contemplated by Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. admittedly is not followed by the police while conducting the search and seizure, proceedings impugned are liable to be quashed because in the counter-affidavit in W.P.No.14620 of 2004 it is clearly admitted that only police officials (but no independent witnesses) were present at the time of search. He placed strong reliance on the observations in State, Government of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil, 2001. (1) SCC 652, in support of his contention that the procedure laid down in Section 100 Cr.P.C. is mandatory.
(3.) The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that since mala fides have no relevance in quash proceedings and since the procedure prescribed by the Act is strictly followed and since the contentions raised by the petitioners have to be decided only at the time of trial, question of quashing the charge-sheet does not arise.