Section 13 of Gambling Act Is Cognizable — Magistrate Can Take Cognizance on Police Report: Allahabad High Court Clarifies

"Section 13 expressly authorises arrest without warrant — investigation and charge-sheet valid, no illegality in cognizance":  In a significant ruling on the procedural classification of gambling offences, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has held that offences under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867, as amended in Uttar Pradesh, are cognizable, thereby empowering the police to arrest without warrant, investigate, and submit a charge-sheet without prior Magistrate’s permission. The Court dismissed a petition seeking to quash proceedings on the ground that the offence was non-cognizable.

Delivering the judgment on December 12, 2025, in Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 43373 of 2025, Justice Vivek Kumar Singh held that "Section 13 clearly authorises police officers to apprehend without warrant", and therefore, "the offence falls squarely within the definition of a cognizable offence under Section 2(c) CrPC."

The application filed by one Kamran sought the quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No. 1468 of 2020 arising from FIR No. 1025 of 2019 registered under Section 13 of the Gambling Act at Police Station Sikandara, Agra, including the charge-sheet dated 21.12.2019 and summoning order dated 24.02.2020. The core argument was that since the punishment prescribed is under three years, the offence is non-cognizable, and the investigation conducted without Magistrate's permission under Section 155(2) CrPC is void ab initio.

However, the Court firmly rejected this argument, holding that the statutory text of Section 13 overrides general classifications, and the authority to arrest without warrant makes it a cognizable offence in law, irrespective of the length of the punishment.

Arrest Without Warrant Under Section 13 Clearly Indicates Cognizable Offence

The Court began by clarifying the distinction between offences under Sections 3/4 and Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, which the petitioner had attempted to conflate.

While prior judgments had held that offences under Sections 3 and 4 (running or being found in a gaming house) are non-cognizable, the present case involved Section 13, which expressly provides: "A police officer may apprehend without warrant—any person found gaming in a public street, place or thoroughfare..."

Quoting Section 2(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which defines “cognizable offence” as an offence where a police officer may arrest without warrant, the Court noted: "Section 13 authorises a police officer to arrest without warrant. Therefore, it cannot be said that Section 13 is non-cognizable. The police are competent to register FIR and investigate without prior Magistrate approval." [Para 10]

This critical finding invalidated the petitioner’s primary submission under Section 155(2) CrPC, which bars police from investigating non-cognizable offences without the Magistrate's sanction. The Court held that since Section 13 offences are cognizable, Section 155(2) has no application whatsoever.

No Illegality in Charge-Sheet or Cognizance by Magistrate

The petitioner had further argued that the Magistrate’s act of taking cognizance on a police report in a complaint-case-like offence was illegal. However, the Court clarified that once the offence is held to be cognizable, the police are empowered to file a charge-sheet, and the Magistrate is fully competent to take cognizance based on that charge-sheet under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC.

"The learned Magistrate did not commit any illegality or irregularity in taking cognizance of the offence on police report. The FIR, charge-sheet and summoning order are all valid in law." [Para 11]

Section 13 Stands on Different Statutory Footing Than Sections 3/4

The Court directly addressed the petitioner’s reliance on two earlier coordinate bench rulings in Imran Khan v. State of U.P. and Imran v. State of U.P., where proceedings under Sections 3/4 of the Gambling Act had been quashed on the ground that they were non-cognizable.

Justice Singh noted that these rulings were irrelevant to the present case, which concerned Section 13, a distinct provision both in wording and legal effect.

"The judgments relied on by the applicant are entirely different in facts and concerned non-cognizable offences under Sections 3/4. Section 13 stands on a different statutory footing and expressly authorises arrest without warrant." [Para 11]

Thus, the Court found no parity either on facts or on law, and refused to apply the rationale of those earlier judgments.

BNSS Section 528 Application Fails — No Abuse of Process or Miscarriage of Justice

The applicant had moved the Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which confers inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice. However, the Court held that no such abuse or miscarriage had been shown.

"The present application lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. There is no abuse of process of law or any illegality warranting interference under Section 528 BNSS." [Para 12]

Trial to be Concluded Expeditiously Due to Minor Nature of Offence

Although dismissing the application, the Court took note of the limited punishment prescribed under Section 13 (as amended in U.P.), which for a first-time offender, entails a maximum of one month rigorous imprisonment or a fine up to ₹250, and for repeat offenders, up to six months imprisonment or ₹500 fine.

Accordingly, the Court issued a direction to the trial court to conclude the proceedings within three months: "Keeping in mind the punishment of the offence in question, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial… as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months." [Para 14]

Date of Decision: December 12, 2025