EMPEROR Vs. CHINDHYA WARLA DHIMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, has recommeded that orders of forfeiture of certain moneys and a gold ring made by the trial Magistrate under Section 8, Public Gambling Act, 1867, should be set aside. So far as is known, the moneys and the gold ring were found on search of the persons of the various accused, and the argument of the learned advocate for the Crown has proceeded on this basis.

(2.) THE construction of Sections 5 and 8, Public Gambling Act, 1867, presents considerable difficulty. It appears to me, however, that the scheme of 8. 5 of the Act, is to distinguish the seizure of articles found on entering the place of gaming from the seizure of articles found on more intensive search including the search of the persons who have been taken into custody, and the words in Section 5 "found therein" do not apply to what is found on search of the persons of those taken into custody. Furthermore, it appears that the articles which should be seized on search of the person under Section 5 of the Act do not include money. It appears that although the definition of instruments of gaming is very wide in Section 1 and although in Section 4 money is an instrument of gaming when it is used for purposes of gaming, nevertheless, in Section 5 and Section 8 money is distinguished from an instrument of gaming. The money seized under Section 5 and forfeited under Section 8 is money seized as found on the premises and connected with gaming by suspicion, not money found in the pockets of those taken into custody.