Delhi District Court
State vs . Sunil Kumar Gupta And Raj Bahadur on 19 December, 2022
CNR No. DL WT02-0001812003
IN THE COURT OF SH. KAPIL KUMAR
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE- WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DL WT-02-0001812003
CIS No. 69184/2016
State Vs. Sunil Kumar Gupta and Raj Bahadur
FIR No. 328/2003
PS.Nangloi/Crime Branch
U/s. 420/467/471/34 IPC and U/s 7(3) of the Lotteries
(Regulations) Act 1998
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission of offence : 29.04.2003
2) The name of the complainant : SI Sajjan Singh
3) The name & parentage of accused : 1.Sunil Kumar Gupta S/o Sh. Pyare Lal
2. Raj Bahadur S/o Rameshwar Dayal.
4) Offence complained of : u/s. 420/467/471/34 IPC and U/s 7(3) of The Lotteries (Regulations) Act 1998
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Acquitted
7) The date of such order : 19.12.2022 Date of Institution : 25.08.2003 Judgment reserved on : 03.12.2022 Judgment announced on : 19.12.2022 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2022.12.19
17:12:32
+0530
CIS No. 69184/2016, State Vs. Sunil Kumar Gupta and Raj Bahadur ; FIR No.328/2003; PS.Nangloi/Crime Branch; U/s.420/467/471/34 IPC and U/s 7(3) of the Lotteries (Regulations) Act 1998 1/16 CNR No. DL WT02-0001812003 THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
Facts
1) The case of the prosecution against the accused persons is that on 29.04.2003 at about 1:30 PM at factory no. 557/2 Sarwan Park, Udyog Nagar, Mundka, both of them in furtherance of common intention fraudulently or dishonestly induced ASI Subhash to deliver Rs 1000/- on the pretext of sale of lottery tickets purporting to be issued by the Government of Manipur.
1.1) It is further case of the prosecution against the accused persons on or before on 29.04.2003 at about 1:30 PM at the above-mentioned factory they prepared forged lottery tickets purported to be issued to the Government of Manipur.
1.2) The prosecution also alleged against the accused persons that the aforesaid date time, and place both of the accused persons in furtherance of common intention used the forged lottery tickets as genuine despite having knowledge or reason to believe that the tickets were forged/false tickets.
1.3) It is also alleged against the accused person that on aforesaid date time and place both the accused persons acted as agent or promoter or trader in the lottery organized, conducted for promoted in the contravention of provisions of The Lotteries (Regulations) Act 1998 by selling or distributing the lottery tickets allegedly issued from the Government of Manipur.
2) After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons. The copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused persons in compliance of Section 207 Cr. P.C. Thereafter, charges were framed against the accused persons for the offences U/s 420/467/471/34 IPC and Section 7 (3) of The Lotteries (Regulations) CIS No. 69184/2016, State Vs. Sunil Kumar Gupta and Raj Bahadur ; FIR No.328/2003; PS.Nangloi/Crime Branch; U/s.420/467/471/34 IPC and U/s 7(3) of the Lotteries (Regulations) Act 1998 2/16 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.12.19 17:12:38 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0001812003 Act 1998 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3) In support of its version, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. Vide order dated 14.07.2022 the prosecution evidence was closed.
4) After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused persons were recorded separately wherein accused persons claimed themselves to be innocent and denied the allegations against them. Accused persons opted not to lead any DE.
5) I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld Counsel for accused persons. I have also perused the record carefully.
6) The testimonies of prosecution witnesses are being touched upon, in brief, as follows:-
6.1) PW1 Sh AK Gupta, Accounts Officer, Manipur House, Chankaya Puri deposed that in the month of April 2003, he along with a Inspector of Delhi Police reached at a place in Mundaka where they found some tickets in the factory printed in the name of Manipur Government Lottery. He deposed that he had written letter to Manipur Government and it was confirmed vide reply no. 3/121/99-
MSL/NR/664 Imphal 09.06.2003 that the lottery tickets were not authorized by Manipur Government to be printed in Delhi. He correctly identified both the accused persons. He deposed that total 18 bundles of 700 lotteries tickets each were seized in the factory sealed with the seal of SSY. He further deposed that total Rs 7,48,000/- sheets of lottery tickets were seized after putting them in plastic katta. He correctly identified the lottery tickets when brought in the court by the MHC(M).
6.2) PW 2 Sh Harish Dudeja deposed that the property no. 557/2/3 situated in village Mundaka was given on rent to accused Sunil. He CIS No. 69184/2016, State Vs. Sunil Kumar Gupta and Raj Bahadur ; FIR No.328/2003; PS.Nangloi/Crime Branch; U/s.420/467/471/34 IPC and U/s 7(3) of the Lotteries (Regulations) Act 1998 3/16 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.12.19 17:12:47 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0001812003 deposed that accused Sunil was running a printing press from the above-said premises.
6.3) PW 3 Hardwari Lal deposed that the property no. 271, Village Mundaka was given on rent by him to accused Sunil Kumar. 6.4) PW 4 SI Subhash Chand, PW7 Ct Anil, PW8 Retired ACP Chandrakant, PW9 ASI Hans Kumar, PW11 SI Anil Kumar and PW12 Inspector Sajjan Singh deposed on the same lines qua the raid which was conducted on 29.04.2003 in factory of accused persons.
They deposed that on 29.04.2003, an information was received that accused persons Sunil Gupta and Raj Bahadur are printing and selling fake lottery tickets at the Industrial Area, Mundka. He deposed that a raiding team was prepared and they made a departure entry vide DD no. 4 dated 29.04.2003 Ex.PW5/A and at the instance of the secret informer they reached the factory bearing no. 557/2 Swaran Park, Mundaka. They deposed that decoy customer ASI Subhash was handed over two currency notes of Rs 500/- each vide handing over memo Ex.PW4/A. They deposed that ASI Subhash was instructed to purchase the lottery tickets and thereafter to make signal by waiving hand. They deposed that after ASI Subhash waived his hand they went inside the factory wherein ASI Subhash handed over ten packets of different kinds of lottery tickets each containing 700 lottery tickets to the IO which were sealed with the seal of SSY and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. They deposed that ASI Subhash pointed towards the accused Sunil Gupta from whom he purchased the tickets and in the cursory search of accused Sunil two currency notes of Rs 500/- were recovered which were sealed with the seal of SSY and seized vide Ex.PW4/C. They further deposed that 18 packets of different lottery tickets ready for sale were kept in the CIS No. 69184/2016, State Vs. Sunil Kumar Gupta and Raj Bahadur ; FIR No.328/2003; PS.Nangloi/Crime Branch; U/s.420/467/471/34 IPC and U/s 7(3) of the Lotteries (Regulations) Act 1998 4/16 Digitally signed KAPIL by KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR 17:12:53 Date: 2022.12.19 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0001812003 premises and apart from that there were 22,000 printed lottery sheets kept in the premises. It is stated that 18 packets and remaining 22,000 lottery sheets were kept in 11 different plastic bags and sealed with the seal of SSY and those bags were seized vide Ex.PW1/A. They deposed that seal was handed over to Ct Mukesh vide Ex.PW12/A and rukka Ex.PW12/B was prepared and FIR got registered. They deposed that SI Satish conducted the further investigation in which he prepared the site plan Ex.PW12/C, seized the material used to prepare the lottery tickets vide Ex.PW12/D, sealed the factory vide Ex.PW12/E, recorded disclosure statement of accused persons vide Ex.PW12/F and Ex.PW12/G respectively but prior to that mark plates were seized vide Ex.PW12/H, followed by the raid at house no. 271, village Mundaka where the site plan Ex.PW12/I was prepared and the material lying there like paint, screen painting types etc were seized vide seizure memos Ex.PW12/J and Ex.PW12/K. They correctly identified the case property and accused persons. 6.5) PW5 W/ASI Jyoti proved DD no.4 dated 29.04.2003 as Ex.PW5/A. 6.6) PW6 HC Hansraj(also examined as PW10 on 21.09.2015) proved the photographs taken by him on 29.04.2003 of the lottery tickets, printing machine etc as Ex.PW10/1 to Ex.PW10/34 while the negatives were proved as Ex.PW10/35 to Ex.PW10/69.
7) Ld APP for the State argued that the case of the prosecution is proved by virtue of testimony of witnesses examined as it is came on record that the accused persons were printing the forged lottery tickets in the name of Manipur Government Lotteries without having any authority and this act is the preparation of the forged documents which was a valuable security and those forged lottery tickets were CIS No. 69184/2016, State Vs. Sunil Kumar Gupta and Raj Bahadur ; FIR No.328/2003; PS.Nangloi/Crime Branch; U/s.420/467/471/34 IPC and U/s 7(3) of the Lotteries (Regulations) Act 1998 5/16 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.12.19 17:12:59 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0001812003 used as genuine. He argued that when Rs 1000/- was accepted by the accused persons from the decoy customer ASI Subhash reveals the dishonest intention on the part of the accused persons which led to acceptance of Rs 1000/- and this makes out the offence of cheating on the part of the accused persons. He further argued that when lottery tickets were unauthorizedly prepared and sold, the accused persons committed the offence punishable u/s 7 of the Lotteries (Regulations) Act 1998. It is submitted that accused persons be convicted for the offences for which they have been charged.
8) Per contra, Ld Defence Counsel vehemently argued that the case of the prosecution stands not proved. He argued that the lottery tickets which were seized from the factory were not lottery tickets.
He argued that there was no date of draw or serial number mentioned on those lottery tickets and as such it cannot be said that those tickets were forged. He argued that those tickets were those paper tickets which were used to be given to kids along with toffees. He argued that since it is not proved that the tickets recovered were lottery tickets and as such the case of the prosecution qua the offence of cheating, forgery of documents or the alleged offence under the Lotteries Act stands not proved.
9) It is not disputed by Ld Counsels for the accused persons that there was raid in the printing factory which was being run by the accused persons on 29.04.2013 and they were printing tickets there. It was argued and so stated by the accused persons during their examination U/s 313 Cr.PC that they were not printing Manipur Government Tickets rather they received a order for printing tickets as they were used to run a printing factory.
CIS No. 69184/2016, State Vs. Sunil Kumar Gupta and Raj Bahadur ; FIR No.328/2003; PS.Nangloi/Crime Branch; U/s.420/467/471/34 IPC and U/s 7(3) of the Lotteries (Regulations) Act 1998 6/16 Digitally signed KAPIL by KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2022.12.19 17:13:05 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0001812003
10) Thus it is not in dispute that the accused persons were running a printing factory at the property no. 557/2 Swaran Park Udyog Nagar and the police officials recovered the printed sheets of some tickets from there and from the godown situated at house no. 271, Mundaka, the articles used in printing the tickets were recovered. Thus it is not required to go in the testimony of raiding party members since the fact as to the raid and the recovery of tickets is not in dispute.
11) The only disputed fact is whether the tickets which were recovered from the possession of the accused persons were of Manipur Government Lottery or not and consequently whether the accused persons were printing those lottery tickets without any authority or not. The entire case is dependent upon this fact.
12) To adjudicate, whether the tickets which were recovered at the factory being run by the accused persons were Manipur Government Lottery Tickets or not, the testimony of PW1 AK Gupta Account Officer, Manipur House Chankaya Puri is most relevant. By virtue of testimony of PW1 it is came on record that the accused persons were not authorized by the Manipur Government to print any lottery tickets in Delhi.
13) PW1 deposed in the cross-examination that, vide reply Ex.PW1/D1, the tickets which were recovered by the police were not of Manipur Lottery. He further deposed in the cross-examination that the tickets recovered by the police does not bear the date of draw and the date of issue.
14) At this stage, it is relevant to go through the definition of word 'Lottery' as defined under the Lotteries Act Section 2 (b) of the Lotteries (Regulations) Act 1998 defines 'Lottery' as a scheme, in CIS No. 69184/2016, State Vs. Sunil Kumar Gupta and Raj Bahadur ; FIR No.328/2003; PS.Nangloi/Crime Branch; U/s.420/467/471/34 IPC and U/s 7(3) of the Lotteries (Regulations) Act 1998 7/16 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.12.19 17:13:15 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0001812003 whatever form and by whatever name called, for distribution of prizes by lot or chance to those persons participating in the chances of a prize by purchasing tickets. The crucial test is the 'chance' to win a prize by participation in the chances by purchasing tickets.
15) This court is of considered opinion that for calling any document as a lottery ticket there are some prime requirements. A document is a lottery ticket or not is dependent upon some basic ingredients of a lottery which must be reflected on that document so that the document can be called a lottery ticket. It is necessary that there must be some unique identification on the ticket which can be used for lottery.
16) The prime requirement of any document to be called as lottery ticket is the serial number of that ticket. That serial number will act as the unique identification of that ticket on the basis of which it will be revealed after the draw as to the holder of that ticket will receive any prize or not. If there is no serial number then that document cannot be called as a lottery ticket. A piece of paper simply typed or printed with the text of Manipur Government Lottery will not be termed as lottery ticket unless the same bears a serial number.
17) In the case in hand there is no attempt on the part of the prosecution for bringing on record the serial numbers of the lottery tickets allegedly printed by the accused persons without any authority. There is no effort by the prosecution to bring the serial numbers on record. Photographs taken does not reveal any serial number. During the trial major part of case property was disposed off without taking any photograph or video. The only thrust of the prosecution was to bring on record the fact that the tickets recovered from the factory of the accused persons were not of Manipur CIS No. 69184/2016, State Vs. Sunil Kumar Gupta and Raj Bahadur ; FIR No.328/2003; PS.Nangloi/Crime Branch; U/s.420/467/471/34 IPC and U/s 7(3) of the Lotteries (Regulations) Act 1998 8/16 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2022.12.19 17:13:20 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0001812003 Government Lottery. This is not enough. The prosecution was required to prove as to whether any fake serial numbers were printed upon the alleged lottery tickets in the name of Manipur Government Lottery to dupe public at large. If there is no serial number than how ticket can be called as a lottery ticket? In the case in hand the tickets do not have the serial numbers.
18) It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused persons printed lottery tickets with the same serial numbers with which the tickets already prepared or issued by the Manipur Government. If there is no serial number then there is no unique identification of that ticket and if there is no unique identification then the same cannot be called as a lottery ticket.
19) In a lottery few persons out of many become successful. The lottery means that anyone will get a jackpot. The lucky number will be declared and the person having a lottery ticket of that lucky number will get lottery prize. The identification of winner will be on the basis of the serial number of lottery ticket. If there is no serial number winner cannot be identified. Thus in absence of the serial number of any lottery ticket the same cannot be called as a lottery ticket. In the case in hand the printed ticket does not have any serial number and thus they cannot be termed as lottery tickets. PW1 simply identified the tickets recovered. This identification was not sufficient. It not on record by virtue of that identification that the tickets which were recovered were similar to that of Manipur Lottery Tickets. Mere identification of the paper printed tickets having the alleged text of Manipur Government Lottery is not sufficient for proving the charge of printing lottery tickets or selling lottery tickets.
CIS No. 69184/2016, State Vs. Sunil Kumar Gupta and Raj Bahadur ; FIR No.328/2003; PS.Nangloi/Crime Branch; U/s.420/467/471/34 IPC and U/s 7(3) of the Lotteries (Regulations) Act 1998 9/16 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.12.19 17:13:26 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0001812003
20) It is admitted by PW1 in the cross-examination that date of issue is not mentioned on the tickets recovered from the factory of the accused persons. Again, one of prime requirement of a lottery ticket is that it must reflect the date of issue of the ticket. That date accompanied with the serial number are the crucial facts for any lottery. When the date of issue is not mentioned than how a document will be called as a lottery document. The prosecution has no answer to this gaping hole.
21) It is also admitted by PW1 that the date of lucky draw is not mentioned on the tickets. If the date of draw is not mentioned then a ticket cannot be termed as lottery ticket. This is not the case of the prosecution that date of draw is to be declared afterwards. There is no evidence to this effect. The whole thrust of the prosecution was upon the recovered ticket only. A person purchasing a lottery ticket must be made aware as to when the lottery will be announced. The date of lucky draw is the basic requirement. If the date of draw is under uncertainty then by any means a piece of printed paper cannot be called as lottery ticket.
22) Thus in absence of serial numbers, date of issue and date of lucky draw a printed paper even though it mentioned the text that it is a Manipur Government Lottery Ticket is of no consequence. Thus the prosecution fails to prove that the tickets were lottery tickets. The entire case of prosecution fails on this issue only. Since the entire case was dependent upon printing of fake lottery ticket, the recovered paper printed not proved to be lottery ticket, the case falls on its head.
23) If it is not proved that the tickets were lottery tickets than the question of valuable security as required for the offence U/s 467 IPC is out of question.
CIS No. 69184/2016, State Vs. Sunil Kumar Gupta and Raj Bahadur ; FIR No.328/2003; PS.Nangloi/Crime Branch; U/s.420/467/471/34 IPC and U/s 7(3) of the Lotteries (Regulations) Act 1998 10/16 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL Date:
KUMAR KUMAR 2022.12.19 17:13:39 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0001812003
24) A person is printing document by the name Manipur Government Lottery without mentioning serial number, date of draw etc, than the same does not fall any of the clauses of section 464 IPC which defines a false documents.
25) Section 464 IPC reads as under:
"A first person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-
First- who dishonestly or fraudulently-
a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
c) affixes any (electronic signature) on any electronic record;
d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the (electronic signature), with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or a part of document, electronic record or (electronic signature) was made, signed, sealed executed transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed executed or affixed; or Secondly- Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, CIS No. 69184/2016, State Vs. Sunil Kumar Gupta and Raj Bahadur ; FIR No.328/2003; PS.Nangloi/Crime Branch; U/s.420/467/471/34 IPC and U/s 7(3) of the Lotteries (Regulations) Act 1998 11/16 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL Date:
KUMAR KUMAR 2022.12.19 17:13:45 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0001812003 executed or affixed with (electronic signature) either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly- Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his (electronic signature) on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
26) Section 463 IPC reads as under:
"Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commit forgery"
27) The condition precedent for any offence under section 467 IPC and 471 IPC is the forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making false document or false electronic record or any part thereof.
This case does not relates to any false electronic record. Therefore the question is whether the accused persons in printing some tickets CIS No. 69184/2016, State Vs. Sunil Kumar Gupta and Raj Bahadur ; FIR No.328/2003; PS.Nangloi/Crime Branch; U/s.420/467/471/34 IPC and U/s 7(3) of the Lotteries (Regulations) Act 1998 12/16 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2022.12.19 17:13:52 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0001812003 in the name of Manipur Lottery can be said to have made or executed false documents.
28) If the section 464 IPC be carefully analyzed then a person is said to have made to have false documents if i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; ii) he altered or tempered a document; or iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.
29) By virtue of above-discussion it is proved on record that the alleged tickets could not be said to be the lottery tickets as there were no serial number, date of issue and date of draw. When the ticket cannot be said to be a lottery ticket then the authorization or no authorization from Manipur Government is completely irrelevant.
The first part of section 464 IPC that a document will be false if the same was executed by someone claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else. The issue of authorization would have been relevant provided the prosecution was able to proof by leading affirmative evidences that the documents in question were lottery tickets. In absence of the same, the authorization from the Manipur Government is a irrelevant question. The other two parts of section 464 IPC as to the alteration in the document or obtaining a document by deception are not applicable to this case.
30) Since the ingredients of section 464 IPC is not made out and as such the tickets in question allegedly recovered from the printing factory of accused persons cannot be said to be false documents. If the tickets were not false documents than there was no forgery. If there was no forgery then neither the section 467 IPC nor section 471 IPC are attracted. Accordingly, section 467/471 IPC not proved CIS No. 69184/2016, State Vs. Sunil Kumar Gupta and Raj Bahadur ; FIR No.328/2003; PS.Nangloi/Crime Branch; U/s.420/467/471/34 IPC and U/s 7(3) of the Lotteries (Regulations) Act 1998 13/16 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.12.19 17:13:57 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0001812003 against accused persons.
31) Further, this court is of the considered opinion that the offence of cheating for which the accused persons have been charged along with the offence of criminal conspiracy is bound to fail as there was no dishonest inducement to the decoy customer ASI Subhash.
Accused has been charged with the allegations that he dishonestly induced ASI Subhash to part with his Rs 1000/- on the pretext of selling fake lottery tickets. There is nothing on record as to what was the dishonest inducement made by the accused persons. Accused persons not asked the decoy customer to purchase the lottery tickets. There is not an iota of evidence vide testimony of any witness that the accused persons induced the decoy customer to purchase ticket. If the case of the prosecution be taken as complete truth, for the sake of arguments, then also it was the ASI Subhash only who went to purchase tickets and purchase the same in Rs 1000/-, where was the dishonest inducement by the accused persons? ASI Subhash not deposed about any words said by PW1 which could reveal dishonest inducement by accused persons. A person is purchasing tickets by himself without any avernment made by the other person then the other person cannot be said to have dishonestly induced any person. The case of the prosecution have glaring defects going to the roots of the offence of cheating and thus the basic ingredients of the offence of the cheating i.e. dishonest inducement stands not proved. The offence of cheating also not proved.
32) Further, the case of the prosecution against the accused is that they used to print fake lottery tickets and those tickets were sold by the accused persons. The prosecution has not been able to bring any witness in the court who could depose that he purchased tickets from CIS No. 69184/2016, State Vs. Sunil Kumar Gupta and Raj Bahadur ; FIR No.328/2003; PS.Nangloi/Crime Digitally Branch; U/s.420/467/471/34 IPC and U/s 7(3) of the Lotteries (Regulations) Act 1998 14/16 signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.12.19 17:14:02 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0001812003 the accused. If a person is in the business of fake lottery tickets than he must have sold those tickets to some persons prior to incident in question. Those persons could have been the best witnesses for the prosecution as to the preparation of fake lottery tickets by the accused persons prior to the raid in question also and that fact could have strongly corroborated the case of the prosecution but nothing of this sort was done by the investigating officer for the reasons best known to him.
33) Since, the prosecution failed to prove that the tickets were lottery tickets and as such the offence U/s 7 of The Lotteries (Regulations) Act 1988 is out of question and accordingly not proved.
34) In the judgment titled as "S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P"
reported as 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"...... In our view, the onus to proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the CIS No. 69184/2016, State Vs. Sunil Kumar Gupta and Raj Bahadur ; FIR No.328/2003; PS.Nangloi/Crime Branch; U/s.420/467/471/34 IPC and U/s 7(3) of the Lotteries (Regulations) Act 1998 15/16 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.12.19 17:14:08 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0001812003 ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution ..........................."
35) In view of the above-discussion the prosecution has not been able to prove that the tickets which were recovered from the premisses under the possession of the accused persons were lottery tickets. The entire case was dependent upon the factum of proving the tickets as lottery tickets. Since the case of the prosecution falls on this aspect the offence of cheating and the criminal conspiracy to prepare lottery tickets stands not proved. Accordingly, the offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery of valuable security, using the forged documents as genuine and the offence under Lotteries Act stands not proved.
36) In view of the aforesaid discussion, prosecution is not able to discharge its burden of proof. Accordingly, accused persons are acquitted of the charge leveled against them. Remaining case property be confiscated to the State. Same be destroyed. Bail bonds U/s 437 A Cr.PC furnished. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
KAPIL
KAPIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2022.12.19
17:14:13
+0530
Announced in the open court (KAPIL KUMAR)
on 19.12.2022 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
West District, Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
CIS No. 69184/2016, State Vs. Sunil Kumar Gupta and Raj Bahadur ; FIR No.328/2003; PS.Nangloi/Crime Branch; U/s.420/467/471/34 IPC and U/s 7(3) of the Lotteries (Regulations) Act 1998 16/16