RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner were arrested under section 13 of the Gambling Act and at the time of their arrest a sum of Rs. 704 were found lying in a common pool, Rs. 183 were recovered from Raj Kumar petitioner, Rs. 110 from Gulshan Kumar petitioner, Rs. 115 from Raghu Nath and Rs. 209 from Ram Chand petitioner respectively. However, they were acquitted of the charge by the trial Magistrate. By a separate order dated 1st July, 1983 the trial Magistrate ordered the confiscation of the aforesaid amount to the State. The petitioner went in appeal against this order but the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide his order dated Ist November, 1983. The petitioner have come up in revision.

(2.) THE main and only ground taken up by the learned counsel is that the forfeiture of the amount could only be ordered if the petitioner was convicted of the offence with which he was charged. He has placed reliance on a Singh Bench authority of Allahabad High Court reported as Madan Mohan Lal v. The State, AIR 1953 Allahabad 463, wherein it has been held that "before the Court can exercise is jurisdiction to pass order for the forfeiter of money or destruction of property under section 8 of the Gambling Act it is necessary that the accused must be convicted of the offence with which he is charged". In another Single Bench authority reported as The State v. Rajinder Singh 1971 Current Law Journal 1308, it has been held that in the absence of any specific power of confiscation conferred upon a trial Magistrate no power of confiscation be can be exercised by a Magistrate under section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case of conviction under section 13 of the Gambling Act. This revision petition thus succeeds and the aforesaid amounts are ordered to be refunded to the petitioner. Revision allowed