HC clears police sub-inspector of cricket betting charges

Bombay HC quashes FIR against PSI Kharmate in cricket betting case due to lack of concrete evidence, clearing his name. Justices highlight lack of evidence linking him to the alleged offence.

Mumbai: The Bombay high court (HC) recently quashed an FIR against a police sub-inspector (PSI) Dnyaneshwar Prakash Kharmate, who was accused of being involved in a cricket World Cup betting case in 2019. Considering the lack of concrete evidence against Kharmate, the court cleared his name.

HT Image

The FIR, lodged in 2019 with Matunga police station, had alleged that Kharmate participated in betting between the Australia and England cricket match. During a police raid in a Dadar hotel, Kharmate was reportedly found in a room, along with others, watching the cricket match and engaging in betting activities. The police team seized ₹40,000 in cash along with Kharmate’s cell phone. Aggrieved by the charges, Kharmate approached the Bombay high court to quash the FIR lodged against him.

During the hearing of his case, the Kharmate’s advocate Ganesh Gupta, along with advocate Jamal Khan, argued that there were serious discrepancies in the evidence against Kharmate. Emphasising Kharmate’s tenure as a PSI since 2014, and his clean service record, the defence contended that Kharmate had been falsely implicated. They pointed out that the absence of evidence found in Kharmate’s possession during the raid had raised doubts about his presence at the premises during the raid. Referring to Section 6 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, the defence argued that proper authorisation from the assistant commissioner of police was not obtained for the raid, casting doubt on its legality. They also highlighted inconsistencies between the FIR and the subsequent statement of the first informant, suggesting that Kharmate may not have been present at the scene.

In contrast, the assistant public prosecutor argued that the charge sheet filed against Kharmate indicated his presence at the scene and subsequent arrest. The prosecution highlighted the seizure of Kharmate’s cell phone during the raid as evidence of his involvement. Although acknowledging contradictions between the FIR and the subsequent statement of the first informant, the APP argued that such discrepancies should be evaluated during trial proceedings. However, the prosecution failed to provide concrete evidence linking Kharmate to the alleged offence or demonstrating his active participation in illegal betting activities.

In their ruling, justices NR Borkar and Prakash D Naik emphasised the lack of evidence linking Kharmate to the alleged offence. They noted that no overt act was attributed to him, and the supplementary statement of the first informant discredited the prosecution’s case.

Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition and quashed the proceedings against Kharmate.