section 8: Instruments of gaming, etc., found in a common gaming house may be ordered to be destroyed or forfeited on conviction.

On conviction of any person for opening, keeping or using or permitting the use of a common gaming house, or gaming therein or being present for the purpose of gaming, the convicting magistrate,-
(i) may order all the instruments of gaming found therein or on or about the person found therein, to be forthwith destroyed or forfeited; and

(ii) may order-
(a) 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 to be forfeited ; or
(b) any part of such proceeds, and other moneys to be paid to any person appearing to be entitled thereto.

Explained:

The provision states that, upon conviction, the Magistrate may order all instruments of gaming found in the common gaming house or on or about the person found there to be destroyed or forfeited.

Section 8 further permits the Magistrate to order the sale of securities for money and other seized articles, where they are not themselves instruments of gaming. The proceeds of such sale, along with money seized, may be forfeited. Alternatively, a portion of the proceeds or other money may be paid to a person who appears to be legally entitled to it.

Important Judgment: Pendam Narender v. State of Telangana

In Pendam Narender v. State of Telangana, W.P. No. 23680 of 2014, decided on 22 September 2014, the Andhra Pradesh High Court examined the scope of Section 8. The Court held that Section 8 contains separate components concerning gaming instruments and other seized articles. For forfeiture of articles that are not gaming instruments, there must be a clear basis showing that those articles were actually used as security for money in connection with gaming.

The Court therefore held that a motorcycle and mobile phones seized during a gaming case could not automatically be forfeited merely because they were found at the spot. Such property was not shown to fall within the statutory definition of instruments of gaming or to have been used for committing the offence.

Other Judicial Guidance

In Janata Recreation Centre, Gullapalli v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1979), the High Court considered the scheme of the Gaming Act and recognized Section 8 as the provision dealing with destruction or forfeiture of gaming instruments after conviction. The Court also upheld the constitutional validity of the relevant gaming-control provisions.

Conclusion

Section 8 gives the criminal court important powers concerning property connected with gaming. However, forfeiture is not an automatic consequence for every article seized during a gaming raid. The nature and connection of the property with the alleged gaming activity must be examined in accordance with the Act and applicable judicial principles.