RATANLAL HIRALAL Vs. STATE THROUGH POLICE; RANIPURA, INDORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE material facts are shortly stated:

(2.) RATANLAL and his son Indermal run a hotel in Indore. On 8 -4 -1949, the hotel premises were searched by the Police in the belief that the place was being used as a common gaming house. In the search there were found various sums of money at different places in the hotel. Rupees 4 -2 -3 were found under the Gaddi where Ratanlal, his son Indarmal and another parson Ramprasad were sitting. It appears that one marked G.C. note of Re. 1 was given by the police to Ramprasad. This note of the denomination of Re. 1 was found among the four notes of that denomination which were recovered from under the Gaddi. Various amounts which came up in all to RS. 26 -4 -0 were recovered from four tin boxes, Rs. 27 -6 -0 was recovered from Indarmal's coat pocket, RS. 3 -13 -0 was found in a Dibba at the spot where Ratanlal was sitting. Re. 0 -8 -0 was found under the Gaddi where Indarmal was sitting and annas 0 -6 -0 was recovered from the person of Ratanlal. Ratanlal and Indarmal were sent up for trial under the relevant provisions of the Indore Prevention of Gambling Act (I [1] of 1909). It was a summary trial and Ratanlal pleaded guilty. He was convicted on his plea of guilty and in the exercise of powers conferred upon him the Magistrate ordered forfeiture of all the moneys amounting to Rs. 85 -5 -0. The matter was taken up in revision before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge of Indore and it was contended before him that the order of forfeiture passed by the Magistrate in so far as it rented to all the items seized in the house was not justified. Reference was made to the provisions of Ss. 6 and 8, and it was argued that there did not exist any reasonable ground for suspicion that sums other than the item of Rs. 4 -2 -3 which was reconvened from under the Gaddi where the father and the son were sitting were used or were intended to have been used for gaming. The learned Judge accepted this contention and has made this reference recommending that the order of the Magistrate except in so far as it relates to the sum of Rs. 4 -2 -3 to be set aside.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate conceded that in the circumstances of the present case the reference may be accepted with regard to two items (1) the sum of Rs. 27 -0 -6 which was recovered from Indarmal's coat pocket and the item of Re. 0 -6 -0 which was recovered in search from the person of Ratanlal. Sections 6 and 8 of Act I [1] of 1909 (Indore) read as follows :