Gujarat High Court High Court

Khodabhai vs State on 27 January, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Khodabhai vs State on 27 January, 2010
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/10400/2009	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10400 of 2009
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

KHODABHAI
BHALABHAI (PAGI) - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
CL SONI for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MS CM SHAH, APP for Respondent(s) : 1, 
NOTICE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 27/01/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Heard
learned advocates appearing for the parties. The petitioner is
accused in complaint Annexure-A. The complaint was lodged alleging
offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Prevention of
Gambling Act ( the Act for short). Subsequently a report was
filed adding Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000( IT
Act for short).

Having
perused the complaint in question, it appears that the police
authorities had unearthed a cricket betting scandal being carried out
from a flat premise near Nehrunagar circle, Ahmedabad. The
petitioner is watchman in the said complex. As per the complaint,
accused no.1 and others in connivance each other were carrying on
such betting systematically using computers. The petitioner is shown
as one of the accomplices. He is allegedly watchman in the said
complaint.

Insofar
as sections 4 and 5 of the Act is concerned, no case for quashing is
made out.

With
respect to Section 66 of the IT Act is concerned, however, it can be
seen that same is provided for punishing a person who destroys or
deletes or alters any information residing in a computer resource or
diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously by any
means, and thereby committed hacking.

In
the present case, insofar as petitioner is concerned, no allegations
under Section 66 of the IT Act is made out. Complaint qua the present
petitioner for offence under Section 66 of the IT Act is therefore,
quashed.

Petition
is disposed of accordingly.

Direct
service is permitted.

(Akil
Kureshi,J.)

(raghu)

   

Top