The court can consider materials on record, including the conviction of some accused, to justify the confiscation of property connected with prohibited activities, even if the petitioner was acquitted.

BHAT, J.

Petitioner herein filed Crl.M.P. 489(a) of 1983 in C.C. 1250 of 1982 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class, Trivandrum under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking return of cash amount of Rs. 19,508.50 involved in that C.C. case on the ground that it belonged to him and was not related to gambling activity conducted in that case. The learned Magistrate declined to return the money to the petitioner and ordered the same to be confiscated. This order, having been confirmed by the Sessions Court in appeal, this revision is filed. A learned single Judge of this court passed an order referring the case to a Bench of two Judges on the ground that the answer to the question which has been raised will have far-reaching effect.

2. It appears, in 1982 under the auspices of the Trivandrum City Corporation, an exhibition was arranged in the Putharikandam grounds at Trivandrum. It appears a person by name A. Babu, obtained a right to play games of mere skill in one of the stalls and appointed the first accused (revision petitioner herein) as cashier with effect from 13-5-1982. On that night at about 9-30 p.m. Assistant Commissioner (L&O), Trivandrum City, searched the premises. He found games covered by the provisions of the Kerala Gaming Act being conducted in the premises under the direct supervision of the first accused and in complicity with some members of the public. He also found the first accused sitting in a chair by the side of a table on which was placed a trunk. The trunk contained gaming tokens and cash of Rs. 19,508.50. These articles as well as articles used for games such as boards and arrows were seized and 18 persons were arrested. Ultimately charge was laid against them.

3. Initially 14 accused, namely, those other than accused Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 10 appeared in the court below which framed charge against them under sections 6 and 7 of the Kerala Gaming Act. They pleaded guilty to the charge. The trial court accepted the plea as made freely and voluntarily and proceeded to convict and sentence those accused. The judgment of conviction did not contain order for disposal of property. That was because accused 1, 2, 6 and 10 who also appeared on the same day, pleaded not guilty and those accused wanted to go for trial. They were tried in due course and for want of evidence (evidently) because the prosecution did not produce the relevant evidence, though available, they were acquitted. In the judgment of acquittal also, no order for disposal of property was passed.

4. Subsequently on behalf of the first accused Crl.M.P. No. 3247 of 1983 was filed seeking an order directing return of cash amount to him. On 27-9-1983, a petition was filed on behalf of A. Babu, supported by his affidavit stating that since the first accused had to meet the loss sustained by A. Babu, the money in question may be paid over to the first accused. However, the two courts below declined to uphold the claim made on behalf of the first accused.

5. The main reason which weighed with the courts below in rejecting the claim put forward by the first accused was that the case had ended in conviction of 14 among the 18 accused and, therefore, the property connected with that offence must be confiscated to the State and not returned to the first accused, though he was acquitted. The answer provided by the revision petitioner is that he is unconcerned and unaffected by the conviction entered against other accused since he himself was acquitted.

6. It is open to the criminal court, while passing an order for disposal of property, to look into the case diary statements and other records available in the court to determine the manner in which property is to be disposed of. The fact remains that 14 among the 18 accused suffered conviction for offences under sections 7 and 8 of the Kerala Gaming Act. The case charged against all the 18 accused, including the revision petitioner, was a single case which arose on accou