Kaul, C.J. - (1.)THE material facts are shortly stated:
(2.)RATANLAL and his son Indermal run a hotel in Indore. On 8 -4 -1949, the hotel premises were searched by the Police in the belief that the place was being used as a common gaming house. In the search there were found various sums of money at different places in the hotel. Rupees 4 -2 -3 were found under the Gaddi where Ratanlal, his son Indarmal and another parson Ramprasad were sitting. It appears that one marked G.C. note of Re. 1 was given by the police to Ramprasad. This note of the denomination of Re. 1 was found among the four notes of that denomination which were recovered from under the Gaddi. Various amounts which came up in all to RS. 26 -4 -0 were recovered from four tin boxes, Rs. 27 -6 -0 was recovered from Indarmal's coat pocket, RS. 3 -13 -0 was found in a Dibba at the spot where Ratanlal was sitting. Re. 0 -8 -0 was found under the Gaddi where Indarmal was sitting and annas 0 -6 -0 was recovered from the person of Ratanlal. Ratanlal and Indarmal were sent up for trial under the relevant provisions of the Indore Prevention of Gambling Act (I [1] of 1909). It was a summary trial and Ratanlal pleaded guilty. He was convicted on his plea of guilty and in the exercise of powers conferred upon him the Magistrate ordered forfeiture of all the moneys amounting to Rs. 85 -5 -0. The matter was taken up in revision before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge of Indore and it was contended before him that the order of forfeiture passed by the Magistrate in so far as it rented to all the items seized in the house was not justified. Reference was made to the provisions of Ss. 6 and 8, and it was argued that there did not exist any reasonable ground for suspicion that sums other than the item of Rs. 4 -2 -3 which was reconvened from under the Gaddi where the father and the son were sitting were used or were intended to have been used for gaming. The learned Judge accepted this contention and has made this reference recommending that the order of the Magistrate except in so far as it relates to the sum of Rs. 4 -2 -3 to be set aside.
Mrs. Gandhe who appeared in support of the reference invited my attention to a number of cases decided by Bombay, Sindh, Nagpur and Lahore High Courts. She contended that S. 8 of the Act was controlled by S. 6 and as there did not exist any reasonable ground for suspicion that all the money seized in the house was used for gaming or was intended to have been so used it could not be forfeited. She argued that S. 8 of the Act was controlled by S. 6 and that it was not the intention of the Legislature that all moneys seized in the house irrespective of whether there did or did not exist any reasonable ground for suspicion that the sums so seized were used for gaming or was intended to have been so used should be forfeited.

(3.)THE learned Government Advocate conceded that in the circumstances of the present case the reference may be accepted with regard to two items (1) the sum of Rs. 27 -0 -6 which was recovered from Indarmal's coat pocket and the item of Re. 0 -6 -0 which was recovered in search from the person of Ratanlal. Sections 6 and 8 of Act I [1] of 1909 (Indore) read as follows :
Section 6: It shall be lawful for the Inspector General or Deputy Inspector General of Police in the City of Indore and elsewhere for the Magistrate of the First Class or the Deputy Inspector General of Police or District Superintendent or District Inspector of Police in charge of the area upon any complaint made before him on oath that there is reason to suspect any house, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel or place to be used as common gaming house and upon satisfying himself after such enquiry as he may think necessary that there are good grounds for such suspicion to give authority by special warrant under his hand when in his discretion he shall think fit to any Sub -Inspector or other officer of Police of not less rank than a Head Constable:

(a) to enter with the assistance of such persons as may be found necessary by night or by day and by force, if necessary, any such house, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel or place; and

(b) to take into custody all persons whom he finds therein whether they are then actually gaming or not; and

(c) to seize all instruments of gaming and all moneys and securities for money and articles of value reasonably suspected to have been used or intended to be used for the purpose of gaming which are found therein; and

(d) to search all parts of the house, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel or place which he shall have so entered, when be shall have reason to believe that any instruments of gaming are concealed therein and also the persons of those whom he shall so find therein, or take into custody and to seize and take possession of all instruments of gaming found upon such search.

Section 8 : On conviction of any person for opening, keeping or using a common gaming house (1) or gaming, therein, or being present therein for the purpose of gaming, the convicting Magistrate may order all the instruments of gaming found therein, or on the persons of those who were found therein, to be forthwith destroyed, and may also order all or any of the securities for money and other articles seized, not being instruments of gaming, to be sold and the proceeds thereof, with all moneys seized therein, to be forfeited, or in his discretion, may order any parts of such proceeds and other moneys to be paid to any person appearing to be entitled thereto.

Under S. 6 (c) power is given to the police to seize all the instruments of gaming and all moneys and securities for money and articles of value reasonably suspected to have been used or intended to be used for the purpose of gaming which are found in the gaming house. Under S. 8 on the conviction of any person for opening, keeping or using a common gaming house or gambling there in etc. the Magistrate may order all or any securities for money or other articles seized not being instruments of gaming to be Bold and direct that the proceeds thereof with all moneys seized therein be forfeited. It is clear from an examination of these sections that the two should be read together and that S. 8 is controlled by S. 6. All the moneys found in the common gaming house and seized by the police may be forfeited provided they could reasonably be suspected to have been used or to be intended to have been used for the purpose of gaming. It has been observed by the highest authority that ordinarily suspicion though it may form a ground for scrutiny cannot be the basis of judicial decision but under Act I [1] of 1909 the law does not insist upon proof. Reasonable suspicion is sufficient to entail forfeiture. It is not specified what is reasonable suspicion. It is difficult to lay down where the limits of reasonable suspicion end and conjecture begins. Each case must, therefore be decided on its own circumstances and there will naturally be possibility of divergent views in such a matter. Thus it is difficult to End much help from authorities in such cases. In the present case Ratanlal and his son Indarmal were charged with receiving bets in respect of American futures. There is no definite evidence to show the procedure that was adopted by them. Ratanlal as already, stated has pleaded guilty. For aught we know he may have accepted bets from different persons and put them at different places. I am confirmed in this view by the fact that so many small items of money were found at different places and in different tin boxes. It cannot, there, fore, be said that a Court of law would, be wrong in holding that there did exist reasonable suspicion that all these items were used for gaming or were intended to have been so used.

4a. With regard to the two items found on the person of Ratanlal (AS. 6) and in the coat pocket of Indarmal (Rs. 27 -6) it was argued that no question was put to either of them and no opportunity was allowed to them to furnish any explanation concerning these sums. I am of opinion that in as much as Indarmal did not plead guilty this reasoning may hold good with regard to the amount found on his person, but there is no reason to suppose that Ratanlal who pleaded guilty would not have offered any explanation with regard to the item of Re. 0 -6 0 found oh his person if he so desired. In the absence of any such explanation and his plea of guilty I am of opinion that the order passed by the learned Magistrate should not be set aside with regard to 0 -6 -0 found in the coat pocket of Indarmal (Ratanlal ?) which be was wearing at that time. This item stands on different footing.

;