ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.193 of 2024 of Palakurthy Police Station, Warangal District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 9 (i) of the Telangana State Excise Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the petitioners stating that, on receipt of credible information that some of the persons were playing cards beside Temple Arch, Palakurthy, by betting money and running game for wrongful gain. It is further stated that the Police encircled the said premises in the presence of panchayathdars and found that the petitioners were playing three cards by betting. Immediately, the Police took them into custody and seized an amount of Rs.10,500/-, six mobiles and six pack of playing cards from their possession. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No. 193 of 2024 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 9(i) of the Act.

3. Heard Sri G. L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that without following the procedure laid down under the Telangana State Gaming Act, the prosecution has falsely implicated the petitioners. It is further contended that the game of playing cards is not an offence per-se, it is an offence when it is carried on in a public place or in a common gaming house as defined under the Gaming Act. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of this Court in Tholem Narsimha Rao and another vs. State of Telangana and another1, wherein in paragraph Nos.14 and 15, it is held as follows:

“14. In view of the principle laid down in the above said citations, it cannot be said that the petitioners-accused Nos.6 and 7 have committed the offence under Section 3

1 2023 (1) ALD (Crl.) 326 (TS)

of the A.P. Gaming Act, more particularly when there is no person, who was in-charge and in possession for collecting money towards usage charges. Therefore, Section 3 of the A.P. Gaming Act cannot be fastened on the petitioners-accused Nos.6 and 7 as the house, wherein they are alleged to have been playing cards is not a gaming house.

15. The petitioners-accused Nos.6 and 7 were charged for the offence under Section 4 as well as Section 3 of the A.P. Gaming Act. Therefore, it is to be examined whether facts narrated by the prosecution would amount to committing of an offence under Section 4 of the Act. In the case on hand, according to the prosecution, the petitioners were present for the purpose of gaming in a common gaming house shall on conviction may suffer for simple imprisonment for six months, which may extend to three years. Unless the place of the offence is specified to be a common gaming house, Section 4 of the A.P.

Gaming Act will not attract.”

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioners are playing cards by investing money and the statements of witness clearly reflect that they are playing three cards game. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

7. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel, having gone through the material available on record and having considered the view taken by this Court in Tholem Narsimha Rao (supra) that the premises where the persons were playing cards, cannot be termed as a gaming house as defined under Section 2(1) of the Act. Since it is not a gaming house, Section 9(i) of the Act is not applicable; thereby the petitioner cannot be punished for the said offence. Therefore, the allegations levelled against the petitioners are liable to