- (1.) The learned Single Judge of this Court has vacated the earlier stay order. By the stay order the learned Single Judge has stayed the investigation against the Petitioner, Director of State Lotteries, Sikkim. This investigation has been started at the instance of the police report made against him and the others. This report has been filed by the Director of State Lotteries, Government of West Bengal and suggests that it is being made against M/s. Playwin, their Directors, Managers, Secretaries, etc. They are selling agents, promoters, traders as well as the Director of state Lotteries, Sikkim and others. It is suggested therein that the accused have entered into criminal conspiracy and running on line lotteries in the State of West Bengal in violation of the provisions of the Sec. 4 of the Lotteries Regulation Act. 1998. It seems that on the basis of this a criminal case came to be registered and writ petition came to be filed on behalf of the Director of State Lotteries of Sikkim for quashing this F.I.R. as well as the resultant investigation therefore. Initially, there was a stay in the nature of an injunction restraining the authorities from investigation into this matter. However, later on by the impugned order the stay order came to be vacated. Learned Judge pre -dominantly went on the basis of the order passed by the Division Bench in Matter No. 99 -100 of 2005.
(2.) It must be clarified immediately that the appeals in Matter No. 99 -100 of 2005 are not at the instance of the Director but at the instance of the marketing agents and selling agents etc. of those lotteries.
(3.) Be that as it may, the Learned Counsel for Appellant urges before us that there would be no point in allowing the investigation to proceed. The Learned Counsel(places two reasons for that, firstly, the Learned Counsel relies on the interim order passed by the Supreme Court of India dated 28.2.2005 in T. Senthil Kumar -v. -Inspector General of Police and Others, wherein the Supreme Court had passed the following order. Upon hearing Counsel the Court made the following ORDER Mr. T.C. Sharma, Adv. accepts notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Mr. Ashim Sood, Adv. appearing for Ms. Purnima Bhai, Advocate on record, accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 7. Service is thus complete. Counter -affidavit be filed within two weeks from today and rejoinder any, within two weeks thereafter. To be listed after four weeks. In the meantime, prosecution of the Petitioners is stayed.;