- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14206 CRL.P No. 495 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 495 OF 2019 BETWEEN: THE STATE BY MANDYA CENTRAL POLICE REPT. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-01 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHD. AYUB ALI, ADDL. SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) AND: 1. CHANDRU S/O LATE BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT AALEJI HOUSE, BANDIGOWDA EXTENSION, MANDYA CITY KARNATAKA-571401 2. SAGAR S/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 2ND CROSS, NEAR MARIGUDI, HOSHALLI, MANDYA-571401 3. ABIJIT S/O BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 3RD CROSS, SUBHASH NAGAR, MANDYA-571401 4. BOREGOWDA S/O LATE HALLIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14206 CRL.P No. 495 of 2019 1ST CROSS, HOSHALLI, MANDYA-571401 5. ANU S/O RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 1ST CROSS, HOSHALLI, MANDYA-571401 6. JAYARAM S/O LATE JAYALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, HANIYAMBADI ROAD, HOSHALLI, MANDYA-571401 7. SHASHIDHARA S/O MADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 1ST CROSS, KALHALLI, MANDYA CITY, MANDYA-571401 8. PURUSHOTHAM S/O SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 3RD CROSS, HOSHALLI, MANDYA-571401 9. GOPALA S/O KEMPASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, KANASAWADI ROAD, OPP ADHARSHA SCHOOL HOSHALLI, MANDYA CITY-571401 10. SHASHANK S/O KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, HOUSE NO.2653 HOSHALLI, MANDYA CITY MANDYA-571401 11. KUMAR H.M. S/O MOOGEGOWDA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14206 CRL.P No. 495 of 2019 AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 3RD CROSS, HOSHALLI, MANDYA CITY, MANDYA-571401 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SOMASHEKARA K.M., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1, 3 TO 11; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.10.2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA IN C.C.NO.223/2017 AND THE ORDER PASSED IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.335/2017 ON 16.04.2018 BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANDYA. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the State challenging an order dated 16.04.2018 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mandya, in Crl.R.P.No.335/2017. 2. The respondents were accused in C.C.No.223/2017 for offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1963'). The trial Court discharged the accused in terms of an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14206 CRL.P No. 495 of 2019 order dated 03.10.2017. The same was challenged by the State in Crl.R.P.No.335/2017. The District Court in terms of its order dated 16.04.2018 held that the State had failed to comply with the mandatory provision contained in Section 81 of the Act, 1963, before initiating criminal action to prosecute the accused under Sections 79 and 80 of the Act, 1963 and consequently, dismissed the revision petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the State is in appeal. 3. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that the proviso to Section 81 the Act, 1963 is not mandatory and that the State is entitled to initiate prosecution under Sections 79 and 80 the Act, 1963 based on information. He therefore contends that the impugned orders passed by the trial Court as well as the Revisional Court deserve to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents-accused on the other hand submits that the proviso to Section 81 the Act, 1963 is mandatory and non-compliance of Section 81 the Act, 1963 should vitiate the prosecution lodged against the accused. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14206 CRL.P No. 495 of 2019 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the learned counsel for the respondents-accused. 6. The Revisional Court has proceeded on the footing that the State before initiating prosecution for offences under Sections 79 and 80 of the Act, 1963 was bound to follow Section 81 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, which reads as follows: "81. Entry, search, etc., by Police Officers in gaming-house.- It shall be lawful for a Police Officer, - (i) in the City of Bangalore not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector and either empowered by general order in writing or authorised in each case by special warrant issued by the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or Commissioner of Police or Superintendent of Police; or Deputy Commissioner of Police, Assistant Superintendent of Police or Deputy Superintendent of Police or Assistant Commissioner of Police; and (ii) elsewhere not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector of Police '[and either empowered by general order in writing or authorised in each case by special warrant issued] by a District Magistrate or Sub- Divisional Magistrate, or by a Magistrate specially - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14206 CRL.P No. 495 of 2019 empowered by the State Government in this behalf or by a Superintendent of Police or by an Assistant or Deputy Superintendent of Police,- (a) to enter, with the assistance of such persons as may be found necessary, by night or by day, and by force, if necessary, any building, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel or place, which he has reason to suspect is used as a common gaming- house or for the purpose of gaming on any of the objects referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 78; (b) to search all parts of the building, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel or place which he shall have so entered, when he shall have reason to suspect that any instruments of gaming are concealed therein, and also the persons whom he shall find therein, whether such persons are then actually gaming or not; (c) to take into custody and bring before a Magistrate all such persons; (d) to seize all instruments of gaming and all moneys and securities for money and articles of value which are reasonably suspected to have been used or intended to be used for the purpose of gaming, and which are found therein: Provided that no officer shall be authorised by special warrant unless the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Police or Magistrate or Superintendent, Assistant or Deputy - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14206 CRL.P No. 495 of 2019 Superintendent of Police concerned is satisfied, upon [a written complaint or report made to him] and upon making such inquiry as he may think necessary, that there are good grounds to suspect the said building, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel, or place to be used as a common gaming-house." 7. The Revisional Court held that under Section 81 of the Act, 1963, it is mandatory that proceedings for prosecution for offences under Sections 79 and 80 of the Act, 1963 should be on the basis of a written complaint or report of the officers mentioned therein and after enquiry and due satisfaction about the commission of the said offence. However, in the instant case, the Revisional Court noticed that there was no written report or complaint by anybody regarding the commission of the alleged offence. However, the raid was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mandya, on the basis of information. Therefore, it held that the basis for initiating prosecution for offences under Sections 79 and 80 of the Act, 1963 was neither a report nor a complaint and hence, dismissed the revision petition. 8. After considering the material, this Court is not satisfied that the State had taken out proper steps to initiate - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14206 CRL.P No. 495 of 2019 prosecution of the accused for offences under Sections 79 and 80 of the Act. 1963 and there was total non-compliance of Section 81 of the Act, 1963, which vitiated the prosecution. Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22