Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, constituted a Full Bench to resolve a conflict between two Division Bench decisions on the interpretation of Section 6(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887. The core question referred was whether an Assistant Superintendent of Police, without having been specially empowered by the State Government, could lawfully exercise powers under sub-clauses (a) to (d) of Section 6(1) of the Act. The reference arose from criminal applications and writ petitions challenging raids conducted by police officers, including an Assistant Superintendent of Police, on premises suspected to be common gaming houses. In the earlier decision in Dilip Namdev Irale v. State of Maharashtra, a Division Bench held that a Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted a raid on a gambling house was not specially empowered by the State Government and, therefore, the raid was illegal. However, in the present matters, a different Division Bench by order dated 20 October 2023, relying on the Supreme Court decision in State of Gujarat v. Lalsing Kishansingh and the Bombay High Court decision in Emperor v. Abasbhai, disagreed with Dilip Namdev Irale. That Division Bench observed that since the raid was effected by an Assistant Superintendent of Police, there was no question of him being specially empowered, as the named officers in Section 6(1)(ii) are expressly empowered to exercise powers under clauses (a) to (d). In view of the incompatible views, the issue was referred to the Full Bench. The applicants contended that a plain reading of Section 6(1)(ii) shows that, unlike clause (i) which gives the Commissioner of Police power to authorize subordinate police officers, clause (ii) does not expressly authorize Magistrates and police officers mentioned therein to exercise powers under sub-clauses (a) to (d). They emphasized the difference in wording between clauses (i) and (ii) as indicative of legislative intent to not confer the same powers on those officers. They relied on Emperor v. Udho Chandumal, Emperor v. Savalaram Kashinath Joshi, Sindhi Lohana Choithram Parasram v. State of Gujarat, and State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Landge. The Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, argued that the only distinction between clause (i) and clause (ii) is that a Commissioner of Police can issue warrants to subordinate officers, whereas Magistrates and police officers under clause (ii) cannot directly issue warrants unless specially empowered by the State Government, but they themselves can exercise powers under clauses (a) to (d). The court reproduced Section 6 in entirety and noted the cardinal principle of interpretation of statutes to apply plain meaning. The extracted text ends before the final reasoning and decision, and therefore the final holding is not available in the provided excerpt. The Full Bench reserved judgment on 31 January 2024 and pronounced on 8 March 2024.
Headnote
A) Statutory Interpretation - Police Powers to Enter, Search, Arrest, Seize - Section 6(1)(ii) Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 - Special Empowerment by State Government - Full Bench considered whether an Assistant Superintendent of Police can exercise powers under clauses (a)-(d) without being specially empowered by State Government. The Division Bench in Dilip Namdev Irale held Deputy Superintendent of Police was not specially empowered and raid was illegal; the present reference disagreed based on State of Gujarat v. Lalsing Kishansingh and Emperor v. Abasbhai. The text of Section 6(1)(ii) authorizes police officer not below Sub-Inspector rank by special warrant issued by District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Taluka Magistrate specially empowered, Superintendent of Police, or Assistant/Deputy Superintendent of Police especially empowered by State Government. The court heard rival interpretations; applicants submitted clause (ii) does not expressly authorize Magistrates/Police officers to exercise powers under (a)-(d) themselves, whereas State submitted they can exercise powers but only cannot issue warrants to subordinates unless specially empowered. The final holding is not included in the extracted text (Paras 1-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an Assistant Superintendent of Police - ASP, without having been specially empowered by the State Government - SG, has an authority to exercise power covered by sub-clause (a) to (d) of the Section 6(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act ?
Law Points
- Special empowerment by State Government under Section 6(1)(ii)
- Interpretation of Section 6(1) of Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act
- 1887
- Power to issue special warrants by District Magistrate/SP/ASP
- Distinction between Commissioner of Police area and other areas
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (03) 2
Criminal Application No.1763 of 2022 with Criminal Application No.1761 of 2022 and Criminal Application No.335 of 2023 in Criminal Application No.1761 of 2022 and Criminal Writ Petition No.748 of 2022 with Criminal Writ Petition No.749 of 2022 and Criminal Application No.336 of 2023 in Criminal Writ Petition No.749 of 2022
Mangesh S. Patil, N.B. Suryawanshi, R.M. Joshi
Mr. P.D. Bachate, Mr. N.D. Kendre, Mr. V.B. Madan, Mr. A.B. Girase, Mr. M.M. Nerlikar
Shri Maroti S/o Gangaram Nandane, Shri Santosh S/o Vasantrao Sonawane, Shri Pravin S/o Prashantrao Deshmukh, Shri Gajanan S/o Dhondiram Gavali, Shri Shivanand S/o Ganpatrao Katte, Shri Sarjerao @ Santosh S/o Kishanrao Jagtap, Shri Shivaji S/o Sunil Pawar, Shri Ravi S/o Shrirang Gaikwad, Shri Maroti S/o Kondiram Jagade, Shri Pandurang S/o Pralhadrao Kadam, Shri Subhash S/o Anantrao Tarphade, Shri Kailas S/o Vasantrao Sonawane, Shri Rama S/o Khemaji Gawale, Shri Ravi S/o Govindprasad Jumade, Shri Santosh S/o Laxman Giram, Shri Santosh S/o Balasaheb Kale, Shri Rajendra S/o Laxman Shinde, Shri Makrand S/o Dattopant Katkar, Shri Anil S/o Manikrao Deshmukh
The State of Maharashtra through the Police Inspector, Parbhani Rural Police Station, Tq. and District Parbhani, Shri Bhagwan S/o Sitarama Jadhav
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Reference to Full Bench to resolve conflicting Division Bench decisions on interpretation of Section 6(1) of Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 regarding authority of Assistant Superintendent of Police to exercise powers under clauses (a)-(d) without special empowerment by State Government.
Remedy Sought
The reference required the Full Bench to determine whether an Assistant Superintendent of Police, without special empowerment, could exercise powers under Section 6(1) clauses (a)-(d) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887.
Filing Reason
Conflict between decisions in Dilip Namdev Irale vs. State of Maharashtra and the view taken in present matters based on State of Gujarat vs. Lalsing Kishansingh and Emperor vs. Abasbhai regarding legality of raids without special empowerment.
Previous Decisions
Division Bench in Dilip Namdev Irale held Deputy Superintendent of Police not specially empowered; present Division Bench disagreed based on Supreme Court decision and Bombay High Court decision, leading to reference.
Issues
Whether an Assistant Superintendent of Police - ASP, without having been specially empowered by the State Government - SG, has an authority to exercise power covered by sub-clause (a) to (d) of the Section 6(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act ?
Submissions/Arguments
Applicants: Plain reading of clause (ii) does not expressly authorize Magistrate/Police officers to exercise powers under (a)-(d); unlike clause (i) which confers power on Commissioner of Police; wording difference indicates legislative intent. Reliance on Udho Chandumal, Savalaram Kashinath Joshi, Sindhi Lohana Choithram Parasram, Narayan Shamrao Landge.
State: Only distinction between clause (i) and (ii) is Commissioner of Police can issue warrants to subordinates; Magistrates and police officers in clause (ii) themselves can exercise powers under (a)-(d) but cannot directly issue warrants unless specially empowered. Cited Government notifications specially empowering officers to issue warrants.
Judgment Excerpts
Whether an Assistant Superintendent of Police - ASP , without having been specially empowered by the State Government - SG, has an authority to exercise power covered by sub-clause (a) to (d) of the Section 6(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act ?
since the raid/search was effected by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, there was no question of he being specially empowered by the State Government to exercise powers covered by sub-clauses (a) to (d).
The cardinal principle of interpretation of statute is to understand and apply plain meaning to the words used which the provision conveys.
Procedural History
Initially, in Dilip Namdev Irale vs. State of Maharashtra, a Division Bench held that Deputy Superintendent of Police conducting raid on a gambling house was not specially empowered under Section 6 and raid was illegal. In present matters, another Division Bench by order dated 20.10.2023 referred to Supreme Court decision in State of Gujarat vs. Lalsing Kishansingh and Bombay High Court decision in Emperor vs. Abasbhai, disagreed with Dilip Namdev Irale, and observed that Assistant Superintendent of Police is expressly empowered under Section 6(1)(ii) without special empowerment. Due to incompatible views, the issue was referred to Full Bench. The Full Bench heard arguments from advocates and reserved judgment on 31.01.2024 and pronounced on 08.03.2024.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887: Section 6(1)(i), Section 6(1)(ii), Section 6(1)(iii), clauses (a)-(d)
