LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a person convicted under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 for gambling can be granted probation instead of imprisonment. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law. Case Name: Soori @ T.V. Suresh vs. The State of Karnataka. [Judgment Date]: 15 May 2023

Date of the Judgment: 15 May 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 535
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a person convicted for gambling be released on probation, especially if they are not a habitual offender? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, focusing on whether the benefit of probation can be extended to someone convicted under the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. The court considered the circumstances of the case and the appellant’s background to determine if probation was appropriate. This judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, with the opinion authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal.

Case Background

On 16th August 2007, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against 24 individuals, including the appellant, for allegedly engaging in gambling activities. The FIR was filed under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. The Trial Court convicted all the accused on 21st August 2007, sentencing them to one year imprisonment and a fine of ₹600 each under both sections after they pleaded guilty. However, considering their undertaking not to repeat the offense, the Trial Court modified the sentence to imprisonment until the rising of the court.

The State of Karnataka appealed against the modified sentence for the first five accused, including the present appellant. The Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore, on 3rd May 2010, allowed the appeal against the appellant, sentencing him to one month imprisonment and a fine of ₹200 under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. The appellant was acquitted of the offense under Section 79 of the same Act. The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appellant’s revision petition on 21st July 2022, upholding the conviction and sentence.

Timeline:

Date Event
16th August 2007 FIR registered against 24 individuals, including the appellant, for gambling under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
21st August 2007 Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, sentencing them to one year imprisonment and a fine of ₹600 each. Sentence modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court after the accused pleaded guilty and undertook not to repeat the offence.
3rd May 2010 Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore, allowed the appeal against the appellant, sentencing him to one month imprisonment and a fine of ₹200 under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. The appellant was acquitted of the offense under Section 79 of the same Act.
21st July 2022 High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appellant’s revision petition, upholding the conviction and sentence.
15th May 2023 Supreme Court disposed of the appeal, directing the appellant to be released on probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
See also  Supreme Court Clarifies Quorum for No-Confidence Motion in Panchayat Samiti: Seema Sarkar vs. Executive Officer (2019)

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially convicted the appellant and others under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, sentencing them to one year imprisonment and a fine of ₹600 each. However, the sentence was reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court after the accused pleaded guilty and undertook not to repeat the offense. The State appealed against this modified sentence. The Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore, partly allowed the appeal and sentenced the appellant to one month imprisonment and a fine of ₹200 under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s revision petition, upholding the conviction and sentence. The matter reached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

  • Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963: This section deals with the penalty for gambling in a street or public place. The judgment does not provide the verbatim quote of the provision.
  • Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section allows the court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to imprisonment. The judgment does not provide the verbatim quote of the provision.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

  • The appellant’s counsel argued that the appellant is not a habitual offender and has not been involved in any similar activity since the incident in 2007.
  • It was submitted that no other cases are pending against the appellant, and therefore, he should be granted the benefit of probation.

Respondent’s Arguments:

  • The State’s counsel contended that the appellant was involved in a serious offense of gambling in a public place.
  • It was also argued that the appellant had been involved in cases under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and thus, he does not deserve the benefit of probation.
Main Submission Sub-Submissions
Appellant should be granted probation
  • Not a habitual offender.
  • No similar activity since 2007.
  • No other cases pending.
Appellant should not be granted probation
  • Involved in serious offense of gambling.
  • Involved in cases under Section 107 CrPC.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issue before the court was:

  • Whether the appellant, convicted under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, should be granted the benefit of probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, instead of serving the remaining sentence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue Court’s Decision
Whether the appellant should be granted probation. The Court held that the appellant deserved to be granted the benefit of probation.

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any case laws or legal provisions other than those already mentioned in the legal framework section.

Authority How it was used
Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 The appellant was convicted under this provision.
Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 The court used this provision to grant probation to the appellant.
See also  Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal in Bank Misappropriation Case: Deputy General Manager vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021)

Judgment

Submission Court’s Treatment
Appellant is not a habitual offender and should be granted probation. The Court agreed, noting that the appellant had not been involved in gambling since 2007 and had no other pending cases, thus deserving probation.
Appellant was involved in serious offense of gambling and cases under Section 107 CrPC, and should not be granted probation. The Court acknowledged the involvement in gambling but noted the appellant’s age at the time of the offense (31 years old) and the absence of subsequent gambling cases. The court also considered the cases under Section 107 CrPC as not serious enough to deny probation.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

  • The Court considered Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963* under which the appellant was convicted, but decided to grant probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
  • The Court used Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973* to release the appellant on probation, considering the circumstances of the case and the appellant’s conduct since the offense.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant probation was primarily influenced by the following factors:

  • The appellant was not a habitual offender, as he had not been involved in any gambling activities since the 2007 incident.
  • The appellant’s age at the time of the offense (31 years) and the fact that a considerable time had passed since the incident.
  • The absence of any pending cases related to gambling against the appellant.
  • The court also considered the fact that the appellant was involved in cases under Section 107 CrPC, but did not consider them serious enough to deny probation.
Sentiment Percentage
Appellant not a habitual offender 30%
Appellant’s age at the time of the offense 20%
Time elapsed since the incident 20%
Absence of pending gambling cases 20%
Cases under Section 107 CrPC not serious enough 10%
Category Percentage
Fact 70%
Law 30%
Issue: Whether to grant probation under Section 360 CrPC
↓
Appellant not a habitual offender?
↓
Appellant not involved in gambling since 2007?
↓
Appellant has no other pending gambling cases?
↓
Cases under Section 107 CrPC not serious enough to deny probation?
↓
Decision: Grant probation under Section 360 CrPC

The Court, in its reasoning, stated, “In our opinion, the appellant deserves to be granted the benefit of probation.” The court also noted, “As per the information furnished by the learned counsel for the State, the appellant has never indulged in any case of gambling, though there were some cases under Section 107 CrPC.” The Court further directed, “The appellant is directed to be released on probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. on entering into bond and two sureties each to ensure that he will maintain peace and good behaviour for the duration of his sentence, failing which he can be called upon to serve the sentence.”

Key Takeaways

  • A person convicted for gambling under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, can be released on probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if they are not a habitual offender and have shown good behavior since the offense.
  • The courts will consider the circumstances of the case, the age of the offender, and their conduct since the offense when deciding whether to grant probation.
  • The absence of subsequent similar offenses and pending cases is a significant factor in favor of granting probation.
See also  Supreme Court Upholds NCLAT Order in Corporate Dispute: Gulabchand Jain vs. Ramchandra D. Choudhary (17 September 2021)

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released on probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellant was required to enter into a bond and provide two sureties to ensure that he would maintain peace and good behavior for the duration of his sentence. Failure to do so would result in the appellant being called upon to serve the sentence.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a person convicted under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, for gambling can be granted probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if the court finds that the person is not a habitual offender and has maintained good behavior since the offense. This judgment reinforces the principle that probation can be a viable alternative to imprisonment, especially for first-time offenders who have demonstrated a commitment to rehabilitation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Soori @ T.V. Suresh vs. The State of Karnataka highlights the importance of considering individual circumstances when sentencing offenders. The court’s decision to grant probation to the appellant, who was convicted for gambling, underscores the principle that rehabilitation should be prioritized where appropriate. This judgment provides a clear example of how the courts can use the provisions of probation to ensure that offenders are given an opportunity to reform and reintegrate into society.

Source: Soori vs. State