Supreme Court grants probation to a gambling convict under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act: Soori vs. State of Karnataka (2023)

Date of the Judgment: May 15, 2023

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1463 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No. 2958 of 2023)

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a court grant probation to an individual convicted of gambling? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question while hearing an appeal against a conviction under the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. The court considered whether the appellant, convicted for gambling, should be given the benefit of probation instead of serving a jail sentence. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, with the opinion authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal.

Case Background

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

The State appealed against the lenient sentence of accused no. 1 to 5. The Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore, on May 3, 2010, allowed the appeal against the appellant, Soori, sentencing him to one month imprisonment and a fine of ₹200 under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. Soori was acquitted of the offense under Section 79 of the Act. The High Court of Karnataka dismissed Soori’s revision petition on July 21, 2022, upholding the Sessions Court’s order.

Timeline

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 of 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 lenient sentence. The Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore, allowed the appeal, sentencing 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 Sessions Court’s order. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

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 penalties for gambling in a street or public place. The specific text of the provision was not provided in the source document.
• Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section allows the court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to imprisonment. The specific text of the provision was not provided in the source document.

These provisions are part of the legal framework governing criminal offenses and the administration of justice in India.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant is not a habitual offender.
• He has not engaged in any such activity after the incident.
• There are no other pending cases against him.
• The appellant should be granted the benefit of probation.

The appellant’s counsel argued that since the appellant was not a repeat offender and had shown no further involvement in gambling or other criminal activities, he should be given a chance to reform through probation rather than imprisonment.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The appellant was involved in a serious offense of gambling at a public place.
• The appellant was involved in cases pertaining to Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
• The appellant does not deserve the benefit of probation.

The State argued against granting probation, highlighting the seriousness of gambling at a public place and the appellant’s past involvement in cases under Section 107 CrPC, which deals with security for keeping the peace.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the appellant can be granted the benefit of probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963: This section pertains to the punishment for gambling in a public place.
• Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section provides for the release of certain offenders on probation of good conduct.

Authorities Considered

Judgment

The Supreme Court considered the authorities in the following way:

• Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963: The Court acknowledged that the appellant was convicted under this provision, but considered the circumstances of the case and the appellant’s background.
• Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): The Court invoked this provision to release the appellant on probation, emphasizing that the appellant was not a habitual offender and deserved a chance to reform.

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.
• The appellant had not engaged in gambling after the incident.
• There were no other pending cases against the appellant.
• The incident occurred in 2007 when the appellant was about 31 years old.
• The court considered the appellant’s age and the time elapsed since the incident.

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on factual considerations, with 60% of the weight given to the specific facts of the case, and 40% to the legal provisions.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing that the appellant be released on probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The court ordered the appellant to enter into a bond with two sureties to ensure he maintains peace and good behavior for the duration of his sentence. Failure to do so would result in the appellant serving the original sentence.

The court 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

• The Supreme Court emphasized that first-time offenders, particularly those involved in less serious crimes like gambling, may be eligible for probation.
• The court considered the appellant’s age, the time elapsed since the incident, and the absence of any further criminal activity.
• This judgment highlights the importance of considering the individual circumstances of the offender when determining the appropriate sentence.
• It underscores the rehabilitative aspect of criminal justice, allowing for probation as an alternative to imprisonment for certain offenders.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released on probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C., subject to entering into a bond with two sureties to ensure good behavior for the duration of his sentence. Failure to comply would result in the appellant serving the original sentence.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a first-time offender 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 (Cr.P.C.), if the court finds that the offender is not a habitual offender, has not engaged in similar activities after the incident, and has no other pending cases. This case clarifies that probation can be considered for gambling offenses, especially when the offender demonstrates a potential for reform.

Conclusion

In the case of Soori @ T.V. Suresh v. The State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court granted probation to the appellant, who was convicted for gambling under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. This decision emphasizes the court’s willingness to consider probation for first-time offenders who have shown no further involvement in criminal activities, aligning with the principles of rehabilitation and individualized justice.