(1.) Petitioner herein filed Crl. MP 489(a) of 1983 in CC 1250 of 1982 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class, Trivandrum under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking return of cash amount of Rs. 19,508.50 involved in that CC case on the ground that it belonged to him and was not related to gambling activity conducted in that case. The learned Magistrate declined to return the money to the petitioner and ordered the same to be confiscated. This order, having been confirmed by the Sessions Court in appeal, this revision is filed. A learned single Judge of this court passed an order referring the case to a bench of two Judges on the ground that the answer to the question which has been raised will have far reaching effect.
(2.) It appears, in 1982 under the auspices of the Trivandrum City Corporation, an exhibition was arranged in the Putharikandam grounds at Trivandrum. It appears a person by name A. Babu, obtained a right to play games of mere skill in one of the stalls and appointed the first accused (revision petitioner herein) as cashier with effect from 13-5-1982. On that night at about 9.30 p.m., Assistant Commissioner (L & O), Trivandrum City, searched the premises. He found games covered by the provisions of the Kerala Gaming Act being conducted in the premises under the direct supervision of the first accused and in complicity with some members of the public. He also found the first accused sitting in a chair by the side of a table on which was placed a trunk. The trunk contained gaming tokens and cash of Rs 19,508.50. These articles as well as articles used for games such as boards and arrows were seized and 18 persons were arrested. Ultimately charge was laid against them.
(3.) Initially 14 accused, namely, those other than accused Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 10 appeared in the court below which framed charge against them under S.6 and 7 of the Kerala Gaming Act. They pleaded guilty to the charge. The Trial Court accepted the plea as made freely and voluntarily and proceeded to convict and sentence those accused. The judgment of conviction did not contain order for disposal of property. That was because accused 1, 2, 6 and 10 who also appeared on the same day, pleaded not guilty and those accused wanted to go for trial. They were tried in due course and for want of evidence (evidently because the prosecution did not produce the relevant evidence, though available) They were acquitted. In the judgment of acquittal also, no order for disposal of property was passed.