THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2644 OF 2008 DATED: 22-07-2010 Between Chakka Raja Rao @ Raja …Petitioner –A1 And State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …Respondent-Complainant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2644 OF 2008 ORDER: This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.819 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru, which was taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974 (for short ‘the Act’) 2. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused are cheating the public in the guise of cricket betting from the beginning of world cup Cricket matches 2007. On 30-03-2007 at about 9.00 P.M., on reliable information after obtaining search warrant from Sub Divisional Police Officer, Eluru, L.Ws. 4 to 6 conducted a raid in room No.203 at Sandhya Lodge, Eluru, where A2 was caught red handed while playing cricket betting with others through cell phones and before them one Television telecasting ie., England Vs Ireland cricket match is going on. A2 voluntarily confessed that he is a clerk and organizing cricket betting under the control of A1 who organizing as main bookie and running the cricket betting and cheat the public since two years and further stated that the entire transaction was done with the help of mobile cell phones and after completion of cricket match, he settle the money transaction on the next day. Then A2 was arrested and seized an amount of Rs.2,000/-, one TV, one cell phone and cricket betting numbered paper slip and other cricket match schedule paper slip. Hence the complaint. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that except the confession of A2, there is no other material to show that A1 has committed the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, that he was not present at the time of search conducted by the police officer, that it would be a futile exercise to proceed with insofar as the present petitioner (A1) is concerned, that even if the admission of A2 is taken as true and correct, it is not admissible under law and hence, he prays to quash the proceedings. 4. On the other hand, counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that admittedly A1 was not present and A2 was allegedly accepting the betting in the common gaming house with regard to gaming under the control of A1 and hence, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. 5. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to give effect to the order passed under this Code or to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of justice. There cannot be any dispute that if the allegations in the complaint made out prima facie case of the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, question of quashing the proceedings does not arise. 6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that except the confessional statement of A2, there is no other material to show that A1 committed the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Even if A2 gave confessional statement about the involvement of A1, that is not admissible in evidence in view of the bar under Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, it would be a futile exercise to continue the proceedings insofar as the present petitioner (A1) is concerned as admittedly, he was not present at the time of search. Hence, proceedings are liable to be quashed. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.819 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru, insofar as the present petitioner (A1) is concerned. ------------------------------- JUSTICE K.C.BHANU DATED:22-07-2010 Hsd