Soori @ T.V. Suresh vs The State Of Karnataka

[NON-REPORTABLE]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

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

Soori @ T.V. Suresh …Appellant(s) Versus The State of Karnataka …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The appellant having been convicted under Section 80 of

the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the 1963 Act’) has filed the

present appeal. Notice in the appeal was issued on 27.02.2023

limited to the extent of consideration as to whether the appellant can

be granted benefit of probation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that FIR dated 16.8.2007 was

registered against 24 accused persons including the appellant under

sections 79 and 80 of the 1963 Act as they were found to be indulging

in gambling. The charge sheet was filed and the Trial Court vide order

dated 21.8.2007 convicted them under Section 79 & 80 of the 1963 Act

and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NIRMALA NEGI Date: 2023.05.15 17:34:17 IST Reason: each under both the provisions along with a fine of ₹ 600/- after the

accused had pleaded guilty. At that stage, the accused filed affidavits

Page 1 of 3 Criminal Appeal No. 1463 of 2023

before the Trial Court undertaking that they will not commit such

offence in future and taking note of that, the Trial Court sentenced the

accused to imprisonment till the rising of the Court.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the State preferred appeal

against accused no. 1 to 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Mysore, vide order dated 3.05.2010, allowed the appeal against the

accused no.1, the appellant, and sentenced him to undergo

imprisonment for a period of one month and imposed a fine of ₹ 200/-

under Section 80 the 1963 Act. He, however, was acquitted for offence

under Section 79 of the 1963 Act. No order was passed against other

accused as they could not be served. The order of the first Appellate

Court was challenged before the High Court by filing Criminal Revision

Petition No.900 of 2013 and the same was dismissed vide order dated

21.07.2022.

4. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant

is that the appellant is not a habitual offender. He has not indulged in

any such activity after the involvement in the case in hand. There are

no other cases pending against him. He may be given the benefit of

probation.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent

State submitted that the appellant was involved in a serious offence of

gambling at public place and was involved in cases pertaining to

Page 2 of 3 Criminal Appeal No. 1463 of 2023

Section 107 CrPC. Subsequently, he does not deserve the benefit of

probation.

6. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

7. The incident pertains to the year 2007, when the appellant

was about 31 years of age and has been sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for a period of one month. 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. In our opinion, the appellant deserves to be

granted the benefit of probation.

8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 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.

_____________, J.

(Abhay S. Oka)

____________, J.

(Rajesh Bindal) New Delhi May 15, 2023

//NR-MB //

Page 3 of 3