# Mujeeb Ahmad v. State Of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 5
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-12
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 39225 of 2024
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mujeeb-ahmad-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52946
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

12 All. Mujeeb Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
5
(2025) 12 ILRA 5
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 39225 of 2024

Mujeeb Ahmad ...Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Whether the learned Magistrate committed
gross illegality in not accepting the charge-sheet
in toto by taking cognizance only under Sections
379 & 411 IPC and not taking cognizance under
Sections 4/ 21 of Act, 1957 or Rules 3/7/ 57 of
Rules, 1963.

Head Notes
The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973Section 482; The Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Sections 379 & 411; The U.P. Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1957- Sections 4 & 21; The U.P. Minor
Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963- Rules
3,7 & 57- Section 22 of the Act, 1957 is
very clear which provides that no court
shall take cognizance for any offence
under the Act, 1957 and Rule 76 of Rules,
2021 also provides that no court shall take
cognizance of any offence under the
Rules, 2021 unless a complaint is filed in
writing by an officer authorised by Central
Government
or
State
Government.
Similarly in view of Rule 74 of Rules,
1963, no cognizance can be taken under
the Rules, 1963 unless a complaint is filed
by the District Magistrate or any other
officer authorised by him- Submissions
raised
by
the
applicant
call
for
determination on questions of fact which
may be adequately adjudicated upon only
by
the
trial
court
and
even
the
submissions made on points of law can
also be more appropriately gone into only
by the trial court-Application dismissed.(E15)
Held- Magistrate cannot take cognizance of
offence under Act, 1957 or under Rules, 2021
on the basis of the charge sheet and he may
take cognizance only when complaint is filed by
the authorized officer along with the chargesheet. Therefore, the learned Magistrate rightly
and correctly did not take cognizance under
Section 4/21 of the Act, 1957 and Rules 3/7/57
of Rules, 1963.
(Para 10, 13 & 23)

Case Law Cited
Kanwar Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another reported in (2020) 14 SCC 331; Jayant
and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 670; AIR 1992 SC 605
State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal;
R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Others
reported in 2009 (1) SCC 516; Kamlesh Kumari
and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in
2015 AIR SCW 3700; State of NCT of Delhi vs.
Sanjay 2014 AIR SCW 5487; Rishipal vs. State
of U.P., Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 12052 of 2010;
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill; reported in
(1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of
NCT of Delhi; reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and
M/S. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v.
M/S. Biological E Ltd. & Ors; reported in 2000
SCC (Cri) 615; State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar
Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC 540;

List of Acts
The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973; The
Indian Penal Code, 1860; The U.P. Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957; The U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession)
Rules, 1963

List of Keywords
Magistrate cannot take cognizance of offence;
under
The
U.P.
Mines
and
Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957;
Section 22; Rules 3/7/57 of Rules, 1963; Section
4/21 of the Act, 1957

Case Arising From
Quashing the charge-sheet No.872 of 2020
dated
15.09.2020,
cognizance/
summoning
order dated 1.4.2024 as well as entire
proceeding of Case No.904 of 2024, arising out
of Case Crime No.805 of 2020, under Sections
379, 411 I.P.C., Rules 3, 57, 7 of U.P. Minor
Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 and Sections
6 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4, 21 of U.P. Mines and Minerals (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1957, Police Station Naini,
District Prayagraj, pending in the court of
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate-15,
Prayagraj.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abdul Ahad, Omar
Zamin
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Omar Zamin, learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri O.N.
Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Present application under Section
528 B.N.S.S. has been preferred for
quashing the charge-sheet No.872 of 2020
dated 15.09.2020, cognizance/ summoning
order dated 1.4.2024 as well as entire
proceeding of Case No.904 of 2024, arising
out of Case Crime No.805 of 2020, under
Sections 379, 411 I.P.C., Rules 3, 57, 7 of
U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules,
1963 and Sections 4, 21 of U.P. Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1957, Police Station Naini, District
Prayagraj,
pending
in
the
court
of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-15,
Prayagraj.

3. The brief facts of the case are that
an FIR was lodged by the first informant,
Yogesh Shukla, against the applicant and
two others on 18.08.2020, registered as
Case Crime No.805 of 2020, under Section
379 IPC, Sections 4/ 21 of U.P. Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act,
1957'), and Rules 3/7/57 of U.P. Minor
Minerals
(Concession)
Rules,
1963
(hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1963'). As
per version of the FIR, the first informant,
along with Brij Bali Singh, went to the
place of incident found 155 cubic meters
sand and 50 cubic meters gitti lying on
Khata No.391, Arazi no.136, area 0.103
hectare. Further, the FIR narrates that the
said property belongs to the Allahabad
Development Authority, and the Lekhpal
submitted a report stating that Arshad,
Firoz, and Mojeeb Khan were using the
place for selling the sand.

4. After registration of the FIR, the
Investigating
Officer
investigated
the
matter and recorded the statement of first
informant, Lekhpal, Brij Bali Singh, and
other witnesses. During the course of
investigation, Section 411 IPC was added,
and thereafter the Investigating Officer
submitted a charge sheet on 15.09.2020
under Sections 379 and 411 IPC, Sections
4/21 of the Act, 1957, and Rules 3/7/57 of
the Rules, 1963. The learned Magistrate, in
his wisdom, did not take cognizance of the
offences, under Sections 4/ 21 of the Act,
1957 and Rules 3/7/57 of the Rules, 1963
in view of judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and he took cognizance
under Sections 379 and 411 IPC only vide
his order dated 01.04.2024, which is under
challenge by the applicant.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the applicant that an FIR was lodged
against the applicant under Section 379
IPC, Sections 4/21 of the Act, 1957 and
Rules 3/7/ 57 of Rules, 1963. After due
investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted the charge-sheet in Sections
379 & 411 IPC, Sections 4/ 21 of Act,
1957 and Rules 3/7/57 of Rules, 1963.
However, the learned Magistrate took
cognizance only under Sections 379 &
411 IPC and did not take cognizance
under Sections 4/ 21 of Act, 1957 or
Rules 3/7/ 57 of Rules, 1963.
12 All. Mujeeb Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
7

6. It is submitted that the learned
Magistrate committed gross illegality in not
accepting the charge-sheet in toto. It is also
submitted that no offence under Sections
379 and 411 of the IPC is made out against
the applicant, as it has not been identified
whose property was allegedly stolen.
Therefore,
the
essential
ingredients
constituting the offence of theft are not
made out. It is further submitted that the
applicant is an old person having no
previous criminal antecedent. Therefore, it
is prayed that the charge-sheet dated
15.09.2020, the cognizance order dated
01.04.2024, and the entire proceedings
arising therefrom be quashed.

7.
Per
contra,
learned
A.G.A.
vehemently
opposed
the
prayer
and
submitted that there is no illegality in the
cognizance order so far as it relates to taking
cognizance under Section 379 and 411 IPC.

8. I have heard the rival submissions
of both the sides and perused the record.

9. For reference Section 22 of the Act,
1957 and Rule 74 of Rules, 1963 as well as
Rule
76
of
U.P.
Minor
Minerals
(Concession)
Rules,
2021
(hereinafter
referred to as 'Rules, 2021') are being
quoted as below:-

"22. Cognizance of offences. No
court shall take cognizance of any offence
punishable under this Act or any rules
made thereunder except upon complaint in
writing made by a person authorised in this
behalf by the Central Government or the
State Government.

74. Cognizance of offences.

(1)
No
court
shall
take
cognizance of any offence punishable under
these rules except on a complaint in writing
of the fact constituting such offence by the
District Officer or by any officer authorised
by him in this behalf.

(2) No court inferior to that of a
magistrate of the first class, shall try any
offence under these rules.

76. Cognizance of offences.- (1)
No Court shall take cognizance of any
offence punishable under these rules except
on a complaint in writing of the fact
constituting such offence by the District
Officer or by any officer authorised by him
in this behalf.

(2) No Court inferior to that of a
Magistrate of the First Class, shall try any
offence under these rules."

10. The aforesaid Section 22 of the
Act, 1957 is very clear which provides that
no court shall take cognizance for any
offence under the Act, 1957 and Rule 76 of
Rules, 2021 also provides that no court
shall take cognizance of any offence under
the Rules, 2021 unless a complaint is filed
in writing by an officer authorised by
Central Government or State Government.
Similarly in view of Rule 74 of Rules,
1963, no cognizance can be taken under the
Rules, 1963 unless a complaint is filed by
the District Magistrate or any other officer
authorised by him.

11. In the case of Kanwar Pal Singh
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
reported in (2020) 14 SCC 331, Hon'ble
Apex Court observed that the Magistrate
can take cognizance on the basis of charge
sheet only for the offence under the Indian
Penal Code, but the cognizance for the
offence under the Act, 1957 can be taken
only on the basis of complaint filed by
8 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authorised officer as per the provisions of
Act, 1957. Paragraph 16 of this judgment is
being quoted as under:-

"16. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we would uphold the order of
the High Court refusing to set aside the
prosecution and cognizance of the offence
taken by the learned Magistrate under
Section 379 C and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Prevention of Damage to Public Property
Act. We would, however, clarify that
prosecution and cognizance under Section
21 read with Section 4 of the MMDR Act,
1957 will not be valid and justified in the
absence of the authorisation. Further, our
observations in deciding and answering the
legal issue before ux should not be treated
as findings on the factual allegations made
in the complaint. The trial court would
independently apply its mind to the factual
allegations and decide the charge in
accordance with law. In light of the
aforesaid observations, the appeal is partly
allowed, as we have upheld the prosecution
and cognizance of the offence under
Section 379 of the IPC and Sections 3 and
4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act. There would be no order as
to costs."

12. The Apex Court again in the
judgment of Jayant and others Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2021) 2
SCC 670, observed that even if the charge
sheet is filed by the police after the
investigation then for the offence under the
Indian Penal Code, the learned Magistrate
can take cognizance but for the offence
under the Act, 1957, the learned Magistrate
cannot take cognizance on the basis of that
charge sheet and it is further observed that
the Magistrate can take cognizance only
when the complaint is filed by the
authorised officer along with that charge
sheet for the offence under the Act, 1957.
Paragraphs 21.3, 21.4 and 21.5 of the above
judgment are being quoted as under:-

"21.3. For commission of the
offence under the IPC, on receipt of the
police report, the Magistrate having
jurisdiction can take cognizance of the said
offence without awaiting the receipt of
complaint that may be filed by the
authorised officer for taking cognizance in
respect of violation of various provisions of
the MMDR Act and Rides made thereunder.

21.4. That in respect of violation
of various provisions of the MMDR Act and
the Rules made thereunder, when a
Magistrate passes an order under Section
156(3) of the Code and directs the
concerned In-charge/SHO of the police
station to register/lodge the crime case/FIR
in respect of the violation of various
provisions of the Act and Rules made
thereunder
and
thereafter
after
investigation the In-charge of the police
station/investigating officer submits a report,
the same can be sent to the Magistrate
concerned as well as to the authorised officer
concerned as mentioned in Section 22 of the
MMDR Act and thereafter the concerned
authorised officer concerned may file the
complaint before the learned Magistrate
along with the report submitted by the
investigating officer concerned and thereafter
it will be open for the learned Magistrate to
take
dognizance
after
following
due
procedure, issue process/summons in respect
of the violations of the various provisions of
the MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder
and at that stage it can be said that
cognizance has been taken by the learned
Magistrate.

21.5. In a case where the violator
is permitted to compound the offences on
12 All. Mujeeb Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
9
payment of penalty as per sub-section (1) of
Section 23-A, considering sub-section (2)
of Section 23-A of the MMDR Act, there
shall not be any proceedings or further
proceedings against the offender in respect
of the offences punishable under the
MMDR Act or any Rules made thereunder
so compounded. However, the bar under
sub-section (2) of Section 23-A shall not
affect any proceedings for the offences
under IPC, such as, Sections 379 and 414
IPC and the same shall be proceeded with
further."

13. In view of the above legal position,
it is clear that Magistrate cannot take
cognizance of offence under Act, 1957 or
under Rules, 2021 on the basis of the
charge sheet and he may take cognizance
only when complaint is filed by the
authorized officer along with the chargesheet. Therefore, the learned Magistrate
rightly
and
correctly
did
not
take
cognizance under Section 4/21 of the Act,
1957 and Rules 3/7/57 of Rules, 1963. So
far as argument of the learned counsel for
the applicant relating to taking cognizance
under Sections 379 and 411 IPC is
concerned, it is clear that charge-sheet was
submitted after collecting the evidence.
During
course
of
investigation,
the
investigating officer recorded statement of
informant Yogesh Shukla and Brij Bali
Singh
Lekhpal,
who
supported
the
prosecution case.

14. The legal position on the issue of
quashing of criminal proceedings is wellsettled that the jurisdiction to quash a
complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be
exercised sparingly and only in exceptional
cases. However, where the allegations
made in the FIR or the complaint and
material on record even if taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused, the
charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of
inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C.
In
well
celebrated
judgment
reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of
Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal,
Supreme Court has carved out certain
guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings
may be quashed but cautioned that the
power to quash FIR or proceedings should
be exercised sparingly and that too in the
rarest of rare cases. Guidelines are as
follows:-

"(1) Where the allegations made
in the First Information Report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety to
do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the
First
Information
Report
and
other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 156(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or complaint
and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the
accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the
FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code.
10 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(5) Where the allegations made in
the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can every reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express
legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions
of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned
Act,
providing
efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding
is manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge."

15. In the case of R. Kalyani v. Janak
C. Mehta and Others reported in 2009
(1) SCC 516, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held as under:-

"(1) The High Court ordinarily
would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction
to quash a criminal proceeding and, in
particular, a First Information Report
unless the allegations contained therein,
even if given face value and taken to be
correct in their entirety, disclosed no
cognizable offence.

(2) For the said purpose, the
Court, save and except in very exceptional
circumstances, would not look to any
document relied upon by the defence.

(3) Such a power should be
exercised very sparingly. If the allegations
made in the FIR disclose commission of an
offence, the court shall not go beyond the
same and pass an order in favour of the
accused to hold absence of any mens rea or
actus reus.

(4) If the allegation discloses a
civil dispute, the same by itself may not be
a ground to hold that the criminal
proceedings should not be allowed to
continue."

16. The said decision has also been
followed by the Apex Court in the case of
Kamlesh Kumari and Ors. v. State of
U.P. and Ors. reported in 2015 AIR
SCW 3700.

17. Keeping in view the above stated
settled position of law in the instant case,
perusal of record shows that there are
allegations against the applicant that
applicant was indulging in illicit mining
and theft of sand. In view of the allegations
made in the FIR and material collected
during investigation, it cannot be said that
no cognizable offence is made out against
the applicant. In the case of State of NCT
of Delhi vs. Sanjay 2014 AIR SCW 5487,
it was held that in a case where there is
theft of sand and gravels from the
Government land, the police can register a
case, investigate the same and submit a
final report under Section 173 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure before a Magistrate
having jurisdiction for the purpose of
taking cognizance as provided in Section
190(1)(b)
of
the
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure. Further in the case of Rishipal
vs. State of U.P., Crl. Misc. W.P. No.
12052 of 2010, a Division Bench of this
Court has held as under:-
12 All. Mujeeb Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
11

"In the facts and circumstances
stated above, since the applicant has been
charged with offence under Section 379
IPC besides the offences under Section
3/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation
and Development) Act, 1957, under Rules
3/57/70 of the U.P. Mines Mineral
(Concession) Rules, 1953 and Section 2/3
of the U.P. Gangsters Act, which are
cognizable offences, we have no reason to
take a view different from the view taken by
the Apex Court in State of Orissa (supra)
and other decisions."

18. The above stated case laws are
applicable in the present case and in view
of that legal position, impugned chargesheet and proceedings arising from it, are
not liable to be quashed on the grounds
raised by the learned counsel for the
applicant. It is apparent from the FIR and
material on record that a prima facie
cognizable offence is made out against the
applicant. The case of the applicant does
not fall in any of the category enumerated
by the Apex Court through various judicial
pronouncement
for
quashing
of
FIR/charge-sheet. It is well settled that at
this stage, this Court has to eschew itself
from embarking upon a roving enquiry into
the last details of the case. It is also not
advisable to adjudge whether the case shall
ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a
prima facie satisfaction of the court about
the existence of sufficient ingredients
constituting the offence is required in order
to see whether the proceedings deserves
quashing.

19. As noted in the case of State of
Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra), power
of quashing of FIR or proceedings should
be
exercised
sparingly
and
with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of
rare cases. In case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v.
K.P.S. Gill; reported in (1995) SCC (Cri)
1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of
Delhi; reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and
M/S. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P)
Ltd. v. M/S. Biological E Ltd. & Ors;
reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Apex
Court clearly held that if a prima facie case
is made out disclosing the ingredients of
the offence, Court should not quash the
complaint/ FIR/charge-sheet. However, it
was held that if the allegations do not
constitute any offence as alleged and
appear
to
be
patently
absurd
and
improbable, Court should not hesitate to
quash the complaint. The note of caution
was reiterated that while considering such
petitions the Courts should be very
circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus,
there is no controversy about the legal
proposition that in case, a prima facie case
is made out, the proceedings cannot be
quashed. Here it would also be pertinent to
mention that questions of fact cannot be
examined by this Court in proceedings
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

20. In State of Orissa v. Saroj
Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC 540, it has
been
held
that
probabilities
of
the
prosecution version cannot be analysed at
this stage. Likewise, the allegations of mala
fides of the informant are of secondary
importance. The relevant passage reads
thus: (SCCp. 550, para 11)

"11......It would not be proper for
the High Court to analyse the case of the
complainant in the light of all probabilities
in order to determine whether a conviction
would be sustainable and on such premises
arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings
are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to
assess the material before it and conclude
that the complaint cannot be proceeded
with."
12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. From the above stated case law it
is apparent that adjudication of questions of
facts and appreciation of evidence or
examining the reliability and credibility of
the version, does not fall within the arena
of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In
view of the material on record it can not be
held that the impugned criminal proceeding
are manifestly attended with mala fide and
maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.

22.
The
investigating
Officer
conducted the investigation in this case,
and after due investigation, submitted the
charge-sheet. Since there are specific
allegations against the applicant in the FIR
as well as in the statements of witnesses, a
prima facie offence is made out against the
applicant. At this stage, this Court cannot
see whether a conviction would be
sustainable on the basis of evidence
adduced by the prosecution during the
course of trial. It would be erroneous to
assess the material, collected by the
Investigating Officer during the course of
investigation. The quality of evidence
cannot be appreciated by this Court in this
jurisdiction. It is the duty of the trial court
who will evaluate the evidence and
pronounce the judgement on the basis of
material before him.

23. The submissions raised by learned
counsel
for
the
applicant
call
for
determination on questions of fact which
may be adequately adjudicated upon only
by the trial court and even the submissions
made on points of law can also be more
appropriately gone into only by the trial
court. In view of the aforesaid, no case for
quashing the impugned proceedings or
impugned order is made out. The petition
lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed.

24. The instant application is hereby
dismissed.
---------
(2025) 12 ILRA 12
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 43373 of 2025

Kamran ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Whether Section 13 of the Gambling Act is a
cognizable offence and the police can register
the FIR, investigate the matter and can submit
charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate may
proceed as a State case.

Head Notes
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023- Section 528; The Gambling Act,
1867- Sections 3, 4 & 13; The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 155(2)-
The language of Section 13 of the
Gambling Act starts with "a police officer
may
apprehend
without
warrant-"
meaning thereby the police officer may
arrest
any
person
without
obtaining
warrant from any court- Section 13 of the
Gambling Act authorise a police officer to
arrest
any
person
without
warrant-
Application dismissed.(E-15)

Held-Therefore, it cannot be said that Section
13 of the Gambling Act is a non-cognizable
offence and police cannot investigate the matter
without
prior
permission
of
the
learned
Magistrate under section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Para 9 & 10)

Case Law Cited