B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure to quash the judgment of both the Courts below passed in STC No. 286 of 1999 on the file of the learned XIV metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad to the extent of confiscation of the seized amount and the judgment passed in Criminal revision Petition No. 236 of the 1999 on the file of the learned 1 Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The petitioner accordingly prays for a consequential direction to the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 3,000/- to secure the ends of justice.

( 2 ) BEFORE adverting to the question as to whether the impugned orders suffers from any legal infirmity and as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the refund of the amount as prayed for, it may be necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts leading to filing to this petition.

( 3 ) THE respondent-State filed a charge- sheet against the petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 9 of the andhra Prdaesh Gaming Act, 1974 (for short the Act ). In the complaint, it is inter alia alleged that on 6-2-1999 at about 8-00 p. m. , the petitioner-accused was found at New road, Shamsheergunj playing satta betting money from the public on the public road. He was accordingly taken into custody and an amount of Rs. 3,000/- and the satta chits were seized from his possession under a panchanama. Thereafter, the prosecution was launched against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 9 of the Act.

( 4 ) THE prosecution in order to establish its case examined five witnesses and marked Exs. Pl to P3 and MOs. 1 and 2.

( 5 ) THE learned Magistrate upon a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the petitioner-accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted him under Section 255 (1) Cr. PC for the offence punishable under Section 9 of the Act. The learned Magistrate, however, ordered confisaction of a sum of Rs. 3,000/- seized from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order of confiscation preferred Criminal Revision petition No. 236 of 2000 before the learned i Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, hyderabad. The learned Judge dismissed the criminal revision petition by an order dated 4-12-2000 confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate confiscating the seized amount from the possession of the petitioner. Hence this petition.

( 6 ) SRI Mohd. Qasim, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed in the revision petition by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions judge suffers from incurable legal Infirmities. It is submitted that the order of confiscation of the amount seized from the possession of the petitioner is unsustainable in law.

( 7 ) IT is required to notice that the judgment acquitting the petitioner of the charge punishable under Section 9 of the act has become final. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the order of confiscation of the amount seized from the possession of the petitioner is sustainable in law ?

( 8 ) SECTION 12 of the Act says that on conviction of any person under Section 9, the convicting Magistrate may order that - (I) all the instruments of gaming seized, shall forthwith be destroyed or forfeited; (ii ). . . . . . . . .

( 9 ) IT is thus clear that the learned Magistrate is empowered to order forfeiture or destruction of all the instruments of game seized on conviction of the individual under Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, it is clear that the order of conviction alone would result in forfeiture of all the instruments of game or destruction thereof. Conviction of the person under Section 9 of the Act is a condition precedent for ordering the forfeiture or destruction of the instruments of game seized by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document