Forfeiture of seized amount is only applicable if the person is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Gambling Act.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. MENGDEY, J.

1. By filing the present Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioners/Original Accused have challenged the judgment and order dated 10.4.2013 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj at Kachchh in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2012.

2. The fact and circumstances giving rise to the present Application are such that; on 22.8.2008, at around 10:30 in the night, a secret information was received by the Police, that some persons are gambling with cards, and therefore, the Police Authorities had conducted a raid at that place, and it was found that the present Petitioners and other persons were playing cards at that place. The Police Authorities had seized the hard cash and dozen articles from the place, and an offence punishable under Section 12 of the Gujarat Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 (“Gambling Act” for short) was registered against the present Applicants.

2.1 After conclusion of investigation, the Police authorities have filed charge-sheet against the present Petitioners in the said case. The trial was conducted against the present Applicants vide Criminal Case No. 3028 of 2008. The learned Trial Court, after considering the evidence adduced on record and after hearing the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, was pleased to acquit the Petitioners of the charges levelled against them vide judgment and order dated 29.6.2012. However, the Trial Court ordered to forfeit the cash seized from the Petitioners. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the State had preferred an Appeal whereas the Petitioners had also preferred Appeal against the said judgment so far as it directed the amount seized from the Petitioners to be forfeited. The Trial Court was pleased to dismiss both the said Appeals vide impugned judgment and order. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the Petitioners have preferred the present Criminal Revision Application.

3. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Nayan L. Gupta for learned Advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that the Trial Court, vide its judgment and order, had acquitted the present Petitioners of the charges levelled against them, however, had ordered to forfeit the cash seized from the present Petitioners by the Police at the time of raid. Being aggrieved by the same, the Petitioners had preferred Appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2012 before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court, vide impugned judgment and order, dismissed the Appeal filed by the present Petitioners. Neither the Trial Court nor the Appellate Court has given any reason for forfeiture of the amount in question. The amount in question was seized by the Police Authorities from the person of the Petitioners. Therefore, it was not the case that the amount in question was placed for gambling by any of the Petitioners. Moreover, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have found no material to convict the Petitioners for the charges levelled against them. Under the circumstances, both the Courts below ought not to have ordered forfeiture of the amount in question. Thus, both the Courts below have committed serious error in ordering forfeiture of the amount so seized from the present Petitioners. He therefore submitted to allow the present Application.

5. The Application is opposed by learned APP Ms. Vruda C. Shah. She submitted that Section 12 of the Gambling Act provides for forfeiture of the amount seized at the time of raid. Therefore, no error appears to have been committed by the Courts below. She therefore submitted to dismiss the present Application.

6. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record.

7. Since, it is contended on behalf of the State that Section 12 of the Gam